Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 3rd, 2013 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: Question on a line from a Tibetan passage regarding Tant
Content:
wisdom said:
On some level non-abiding, or non-recognition is a "sin" in Dzogchen, confession is recognizing that this has happened, and repentance is returning to your natural state.

krodha wrote:
Read this somewhere and can't confirm whether it's true or not, but the root meaning of the word 'sin' is actually 'to forget'... to err or become distracted, interesting correlation if that is true!

From wikipedia:
"The word [sin] derives from “Old English syn(n), for original *sunjō,... The stem may be related to that of Latin sons, sont-is guilty. In Old English there are examples of the original general sense, ‘offence, wrong-doing, misdeed'”. The Biblical terms that have been translated from Greek and Hebrew literally refer to missing a target, i.e. error."


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 1st, 2013 at 6:03 AM
Title: Re: Questions about Buddhism?
Content:
CMP said:
Thanks for these replies, but I'm really not finding these answers satisfactory and many of them don't make sense.

Lots of the answers are seeming to imply that I'm just "thinking too much"....this is where I start believe this philosophy just really isn't for me. Perhaps it's not a good thing, but I have a very strong preference for logic and reason, which comes from the intellect. Any philosophy that tells me to basically just lobotomize myself and turn my brain off seems really dangerous. I shudder to think what kind of world we would live in if people never used their brains and just accepted whatever situation was present. No one would've invented electricity, the wheel, computers, toilets, etc. All of these came about because someone recognized and inconvenience, suffered from it, and rather than sitting on a couch and meditating it away, they decided use their intellect and do something about it.

krodha wrote:
'Thinking too much' is not the issue, thinking, assessing, reasoning etc., are all wonderful tools which help us to navigate our experiences and should not be rejected. When the dharma suggests that you 'still the mind' (which isn't even a necessary requirement), the reason for doing so is because a lot of the time, the tool we call 'thought', can begin to overwhelm our experience and get out of control. The philosophy isn't to reject the intellect, not at all, honestly if you inquire into the rejection of the intellect, it is only the intellect rejecting itself, so that is not the point. If you have a strong preference for logic and reasoning, then there is no reason to create an aversion to that. Again, that point is to inquire into your experience. Stopping thoughts is not the point of meditation, half of meditation is to discover that we are not our thoughts, and then the other half is to discover that we (as "I") are nothing but a thought, whereby we can discover that the cognizant capacity which is functioning in every instance of our experience, is precisely what we mistake to be an objective universe (more or less).

CMP said:
And that's what I meant when I said that meditation made me feel as if I was wasting time. I relaxed a bit, sure. But if there's some magic button to turn my brain off, I'd love to hear about it. Because you can never completely stop thinking. The point of meditation is supposed to be to "let go" of your attachments to things.

krodha wrote:
Half of attempting to stop thought, is discovering that it is impossible. The 'entity' which wants to stop thought, is thought itself. So it is 'a futility married to an illusion' as Alan Watts put it. The point of meditation is to discover your authentic nature, and attachment obfuscates that discovery. Recognition of our nature requires skillful means, because if it is 'the self' that is in the way, how can the self get rid of the self? Part of meditation is inquiry into these things, analysis of oneself and our experience, because it is not what we take it to be.

CMP said:
Well let's say I'm behind on bills and about to lose my house. The bank does not "let go", the landlord does not "let go", the insurance company does not "let go".....but if I'm doing this philosophy the right way, then apparently I shouldn't care....I shouldn't suffer because according to Buddhism, suffering is a choice.

krodha wrote:
By all means handle your relative circumstances, ignoring our life circumstances and what is happening in our daily lives doesn't solve anything and accomplishes nothing. It's not that you shouldn't care, but that you (if you apply the teachings) will find that your life is easier, your own experience will be easier to deal with. It won't magically resolve your relative issues, but how you relate to those issues will be drastically improved. So it's not that you shouldn't care and that suffering is a choice, but that how you relate to your experience is something which is manageable and subject to improvement/change for the better.

CMP said:
And that's where I think this is pure BS. Can ask a question? If suffering is truly a choice, then can I drive a nail through your skull? Will someone volunteer? You might feel pain physically, but you're telling me you won't suffer. What in the hell is the difference? If your squirming and screaming in pain, I believe that qualifies as suffering. This philosophy seems to blame the victim for things.



krodha wrote:
The philosophy doesn't blame the victim for anything, but is a way to empower yourself. Truly it isn't a philosophy at all, because it's not a collection of intellectual notions one adopts and hangs onto like other dogmatic traditions or religions. The point is to apply the teachings to your direct experience, and actually improve your experience. Not in the sense of an opiate, like everything is ok because Jesus loves me, that doesn't solve anything apart from making someone feel better about things on a small scale. The point of Buddhism is to experientially change your life, actually discover a decrease in suffering, on the large scale even become liberated. This 'philosophy' puts you behind the drivers seat, and says you yourself can improve your experience. The Buddha left teachings for you to follow for experiential application, not dogma for you to believe. It may take some time for the teachings to be actualized, I know for myself it took some time. In the beginning I did have doubt, but I remained earnest and was fortunate to have some realizations which showed that the dharma is real, and that liberation is real.

CMP said:
For example, I was raped as a child. You're basically saying that the reason I suffered was because I was too attached to not being raped?? Maybe that's not what's being said here, but I find that to be ludicrous and remarkably illogical and insensitive. After discovering Buddhism, I actually felt a sense of guilt for my own suffering, which in turn made me feel worse.

Anything else to add or is this philosophy just not for me?



krodha wrote:
No one (nor the Dharma) is saying that you suffered because you were too attached to not being raped. Not at all. There's no reason to feel guilt for your suffering. The dharma will only ask that you inquire into your experience. The past cannot be changed, but you have the power to change today, for a better tomorrow. The point isn't to become insensitive or detached via suppression or rejection, all that will do is bury those patterns which reify suffering in your present experience. The dharma may however ask that you evaluate your experience, look at yourself, discover what patterns, habitual tendencies etc., cause these events of the past to plague your current experience. Not in the sense that it's anything you're doing, or anything you should feel guilty of, that isn't the point, nor is it helpful. This is part of the message that 'being present' is attempting to help with, if we can be present, we can notice how residual traces of the past may creep up on us through certain proclivities and habits in thinking, behavior etc. No one is saying you are at fault, nor is anyone suggesting you deny the trauma you suffered, but to inquire into how that trauma is replaying, resurfacing, thriving in your condition, so that you can eventually be free of that stigma. You are not at fault in any way and should not feel guilty, these things are what Buddhism calls karmic propensities, traces etc., which act out subconsciously and plague your experience. There's nothing you are doing that you should feel guilty for, but Buddhism can help to bring these subconscious tendencies to the surface so that they are no longer playing out behind the scenes. So don't feel responsible for these things, but look at the dharma as a possibility, to now bring an end to the processes which are creating this vicious loop you are caught in.

May you find peace and happiness.
For the benefit and liberation of all sentient beings.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 1st, 2013 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Questions about Buddhism?
Content:
CMP said:
Also about attachment....I don't think people really choose to become attached to things. I think it's a natural phenomenon that human beings experience. I have a dog, and I know he's impermanent, but I'm still attached. And I didn't actively CHOOSE to become attached to him, it just sort of happened over time. Humans are evolutionarily inclined to show favor to their own pets, or spouses, or kids, or even possessions. So how do you just "let go" of attachment?? It seems to be somewhat of an impossible task and I feel that even the people who claim they are not attached to something are just lying to themselves.

krodha wrote:
The idea is to eventually understand that we are nothing but attachments and aversions. You as the psychosomatic individual you are, are a collection of attachments, 'I like this', 'I don't like that', 'this is good', 'that is bad' etc., the Dharma is suggesting that you inquire into the nature of "I", or "me", what are you, who are you. Not who are you in the everyday conventional sense, but what is it that constitutes 'you'? Is there anything behind the habits? Or is there just habits, if you say there is something more than habits, where is it? The illusion of an individual entity arises out of attachment and aversion, if you can resolve attachment and aversion, which is to say resolve the illusion of 'selfhood', then that is liberation.

CMP said:
Also, how is suffering merely a product of the mind? Buddhists claim you must be in the "wrong mindset" or "too attached" to something if you suffer because of it....but I think that's absurd. If I drive a spike through someone's head and they start screaming and crying and SUFFERING because of the pain, does that mean it's their fault because they are too attached...?? How can any rational person say such a thing? Are the starving children in Africa suffering just because they are too attached to eating?

krodha wrote:
The suffering is more so the reactionary, or emotional torment that arises in relation to events and experience. Physical pain isn't exactly what is being referenced in the case of 'suffering'. Suffering is the throes of mental and emotional torment, negative mind states etc. In the most basic sense, we do suffer out of resistance to life, we resist 'what is' and when that occurs we suffer mentally or emotionally. That doesn't mean to throw out resistance altogether, conventional resistance is a useful tool in life. But be aware of that process, what is going on, what is occurring. On the coarse level, don't allow yourself to be a slave to spontaneous subconscious reactions, be mindful of the implications of your reactions, how it makes you feel when you reject something, and if you didn't would you still feel the same way?

On a more subtle level, yes suffering is indeed also addressing physicality, but those realizations only come through increased realization. As Dudjom Lingpa discusses here:

"Still, you might protest that it is unreasonable to hold that the body and the rest of the world have never existed as anything other than mere sensory appearances, since those who understand the empty nature of their bodies still feel pain when touched by fire or water or when struck by arrows, spears, clubs and so forth. The answer to this is the fact that as long as you have not arrived at the state of basic space [space being a metaphor for awakened wisdom] in which phenomena resolve within their true nature, dualistic appearances do not subside, and as long as they have not subsided, beneficial and harmful appearances occur without interruption. In actuality though, even the fires of hell do not burn."

CMP said:
Also the concept of "living in the moment" made no sense to me. I mean, if we really lived in the moment, would we even bother putting clothes on every day? or going to the bathroom when we poop? Because if we lived in the moment, we would just take it one second at a time and not worry about the future and who might ridicule us. And even if they did ridicule us we would just put it in the past. So does anybody REALLY live "in the moment" or is that just a bunch of clap-trap?

krodha wrote:
Living in the moment, is more so a matter of being aware of what is going on presently. Not being caught up in thought, thinking about the past, regretting, resentment, longing etc., not thinking about the future, what might come to be, what will happen if such and such does or doesn't occur etc (essentially addressing fear). The idea is to see that the past and the future are merely presently arising thoughts, you cannot access the past nor the future, you are only here now. So dwelling in thought, is essentially dreaming more or less, being distracted in possibilities, potentialities etc.

This individual [Atmananda] wasn't a Buddhist, but his insight is essentially the same as that which we would find in questioning 'time' through being present:

"Time is believed to be composed of the past, present and future. Of these three, the past is past only in reference to the present and the present is present only in relation to the past, future is future only in reference to the present. So all three being interdependent, even for their very existence, it has to be admitted by sheer force of logic that none of them are real. Therefore, time is not. 

Experience is the only criterion by which the reality of anything can be decided. Of the three categories of time, past and future are not experienced by any, except when they appear in the present. Then it can be considered only as present. Even this present - when minutely examined - reduces itself into a moment which slips into the past before you begin to perceive it, just like a geometrical point. It is nobody's experience. It is only a compromise between past and future as a meeting point. Thus the present itself being only imaginary, past and future are equally so. Therefore, time is not."

So your present wakefulness is always in this immediacy, everything happens 'right now'... wherever you are or whatever you do, it is always 'right now'. Time, comes into being when thoughts (which seem to be recalling a previous happening) arise in this present moment and this thought (called memory) is then said to be commenting on 'the past'. However, all that is occurring, is an image arising 'right now' which seems to be representing another time. Likewise, thoughts which seem to be projecting events which have not yet come to pass, arise in this present moment and this thought (called an aspiration, hope or fear) is then said to be about 'the future'. However, all that is occurring, is an image arising 'right now' which seems to be representing another time. Lastly, this present moment, is only the present moment in relation to the past and future, the past and future only being presently arising thoughts are never experienced as actual 'times' so therefore the present cannot be the present and time is seen as empty.

If you delve deeply into being present, it can be apperceived that every "moment" is the first moment that has ever been. However a 'first moment' would imply second and third, it's not the first, or the last, nor anywhere in between. It's an utterly timeless immediacy (And even 'the immediate' only exists in reference to the non-immediate, and is therefore negated as anything inherent).

CMP said:
I tried meditating, but it honestly didn't do much for me. I didn't gain any great experience from it, in fact, I seemed to have a feeling of wasting my time when I could've been actually fixing problems. Where did I go wrong?

krodha wrote:
It takes time to gain experience from meditation, however experience isn't exactly the point. Here are some good meditation instructions from Dudjom Rinpoche...

Instruction on Meditation By Dudjom Rinpoche:

Since everything originates in the mind, this being the root cause of all experience, whether “good” or “bad”, it is first of all necessary to work with your own mind, not to let it stray and lose yourself in its wandering. Cut the unnecessary build-up of complexity and fabrications which invite confusion in the mind. Nip the problem in the bud, so to speak.

Allow yourself to relax and feel some spaciousness, letting mind be to settle naturally. Your body should be still, speech silent, and breathing as it is, freely flowing. Here, there is a sense of letting go, unfolding, letting be.

What does this state of relaxation feel like? You should be like someone after a really hard day’s work, exhausted and peacefully satisfied, mind contented to rest. Something settles at gut level, and feeling it resting in your gut you begin to experience a lightness. It is as if you’re melting.

The mind is so unpredictable – there’s no limit to the fantastic and subtle creation which arise, its moods, and where it will lead you. But you might also experience a muddy, semi-conscious drifting state, like having a hood over your head – a kind of dreamy dullness.

This is a manner of stillness, namely stagnation, a blurred, mindless blindness. And how do you get out of this state? Alert yourself, straighten your back, breathe the stale air out of your lungs, and direct your awareness into clear space in order to bring about freshness. If you remain in this stagnant state you will not evolve, so when this setback arises clear it again and again. It is important to develop watchfulness, to stay sensitively alert.

So, the lucid awareness of meditation is the recognition of both stillness and change, and the quiet clarity of peacefully remaining in our basic intelligence. Practice this, for only by actually doing it does one experience the fruition or begin to change.

View in Action

During meditation one’s mind, being evenly settled in its own natural way, is like still water, unruffled by ripple or breeze, and as any thought or change arises in that stillness it forms, like a wave in the ocean, and disappears back into it again. Left naturally, it dissolves; naturally.

Whatever turbulence of mind erupts- if you let it be – it will of its own course play itself out, liberate itself; and thus the view arrived at through meditation is that whatever appears is none other than the self display or projection of the mind.

In continuing the perspective of this view into the activities and events of everyday life, the grasp of dualistic perception of the world as solid, fixed and tangible reality (which is the root cause of our problems) begins to loosen and dissolves. Mind is like the wind. It comes and goes; and through increasing certainty in this view one begins to appreciate the humor of the situation.

Things start to feel somewhat unreal, and the attachment and importance which one signifies to events begin to seem ridiculous, or at any rate lighthearted.

Thus one develops the ability to dissolve perception by continuing the flowing awareness of meditation into everyday life, seeing everything as the self-manifest play of the mind. And immediately after sitting meditation, the continuation of this awareness is helped by doing what

you have to do calmly and quietly, with simplicity and without agitation. So in a sense everything is like a dream, illusory, but even so humorously one goes on doing things. If you are walking, for instance, without unnecessary solemnity or self-consciousness, but lightheartedly walk towards the open space of suchness, truth. When you eat, be the stronghold of truth, what is. As you eat, feed the negativities and illusions into the belly of emptiness, dissolving them into space; and when you are pissing consider all your obscurations and blockages are being cleansed and washed away.

So far I have told you the essence of the practice in a nutshell, but you must realize that as long as we continue to see the world in a dualistic way, until we are really free of attachment and negativity, and have dissolved all our outer perceptions into the purity of the empty nature of mind, we are still stuck in the relative world of “good” and “bad”, “positive” and “negative”actions, and we must respect these laws and be mindful and responsible for our actions.

Post Meditation

After formal sitting meditation, in everyday activities continue this light spacious awareness throughout and gradually awareness will be strengthened and inner confidence will grow.

Rise calmly from meditation; don’t immediately jump up or rush about, but whatever your activity, preserve a light sense of dignity and poise and do what you have to do with ease and relaxation of mind and body. Keep your awareness lightly centered and don’t allow your attention to be distracted. Maintain this find thread of mindfulness and awareness, just flow.

Whether walking, sitting, eating or going to sleep, have a sense of ease and presence of mind. With respect to other people, be honest, gentle and straightforward; generally be pleasant in your manner, and avoid getting carried away with talk and gossip. Whatever you do, in fact, do it according to the Dharma which is the way of quieting the mind and subjugating negativities.

CMP said:
And lastly...the philosophy itself seems to point to suicide as the logical conclusion. This is what led me to nearly killing myself listening to people like Mooji and Eckhart Tolle. If life is suffering, and we become attached to impermanent things, then why cling to our own life? If I'm going to spend 70 or 80 years basically trying to find the white space in my head where there's no desire, what's the point? Why not just kill myself now and get the long tedious process over with? It only seems logical.

Thanks for anyone who can answer.

krodha wrote:
'The white space in your head where there's no desire' is not the point, nor is it even anything which is an aspect of these teachings. We aren't trying to create detached robots in the dharma, but happy people! Early in my path, I too spent some time with Eckhart Tolle and Mooji, however I didn't interpret their teachings in the way you seem to be. If their teachings aren't resonating with you, then perhaps some other teachers would be better.

Suicide is never, ever, ever the answer. It is a permanent solution to a temporary hardship. My younger brother suffered from debilitating suicidal depression some years ago, and he made it through and is doing wonderful now. While he was sick, he could not see beyond that fog of depression, he had to be hospitalized on numerous occasions because we feared that he would harm himself. So while I do not know your own experience, I have some semblance of an idea of what you are going through, from an objective perspective of course. These teachings are helpful, and they are wonderful, they have improved my life vastly and though I personally haven't struggled with depression, I have been able to sever negative and afflictive emotions through meditation and inquiry, and I am very content with life. The same is available to you, there is no difference between you or I, or you and anyone else. When we strip away our life circumstances and life situations, we are all sentient beings which function in the same way, so application of these teachings, and meditation for you can bring results if you want them to. It may take some time of course, and there must be the desire to be earnest and apply yourself, but it can pay off if you allow it to. I know you don't know me, and I am not a teacher, but if you ever need someone to talk to you can send me a message anytime. Please hang in there, and please try and get some help!


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 1st, 2013 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: Questions about Buddhism?
Content:
CMP said:
...I even agree that suffering comes from desire. But how is it possible to stop desiring things? Even the desire to eradicate desire is a desire itself...

krodha wrote:
Very clever of you! That is the point, to realize that. Alan Watts discusses it here:

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 at 1:06 PM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
For Dzogchen subjective experience only appears out of ignorance, so it does appear, but that doesn't mean it's not an adulteration or a mere byproduct of imputation (it is).

undefineable said:
Again, not everyone here will be familiar with this "Buddhist minimal-awareness" view (Gelug prasangika-madhyamika??) -assuming you're talking about all subjective awareness and not just a narrower object-consciousness- or have the capacity to understand ideas such as imputation generating the subjective experience that its own generation depends on by definition

krodha wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean by "Buddhist minimal-awareness" view... it's not a view which is indicative of any particular school or teaching as far as Buddhism goes, so it isn't anything that is particularly Gelug etc. You'll have to define 'all subjective awareness' and 'narrower object-consciousness' for me I'm not sure what you mean by those two terms. 'Imputation generating the subjective experience that its own generation depends on', is assuming that imputation depends upon a subjective experience for its validity and functionality.

asunthatneversets said:
There is no awareness as a container (or field of potentiality) that things arise in.

undefineable said:
Maybe so, but that's how it might look from a broad-brush perspective, particularly on a certain level.

krodha wrote:
Yes that would be a multi-faceted notion if explored in its entirety.

asunthatneversets said:
You also have to be careful with the whole neither existent nor nonexistent thing as well, because some individuals will interpret that vague border as a license to promulgate an awareness-anchored view.

Awareness isn't an autonomous and free standing quality and therefore it isn't something which can be found apart from that which it relies on... it's only a viable designation when it's in relation to a wide array of other co-emergent designations. This is the type of thing you'd have to do some investigative work with though. By going through the process of discovering all the ways in which awareness is dependent, all the qualities, characteristics, aspects, things etc. that it depends on. Both in the sense of other qualities and also constituent characteristics that would define 'awareness' as what you take it to be. And when you've exhausted that search you will wind up not being able to locate awareness but will only find what it depends on. From there you'll then have to turn the investigation to whatever seems to remain (whatever awareness was dependent on) and find the emptiness of those qualities as well.

undefineable said:
It's turtles all the way down!



krodha wrote:
Although I can't pin down what it would be, the suggestion that what I wrote is creating a circular argument must be governed by a certain presupposition, I don't see an issue, you'll have to elaborate and clarify for me what you're getting at.

undefineable said:
In the case that there's no aspects of mind apart from ordinary objects, then why do Buddhist teachings promise an enlightenment that's supposedly unqualified, uncharacterised, non-emergent, non-dependent, and -most importantly- a [/i]liberation[/i] of the mind (i.e. an enlightenment that's necessarily incompatible with mind if indeed it can't operate on that level)? Further, why was the Buddha unable to answer the question of whether he'd exist after death if (by his insight) he'd been liberated from all things mind-(and body-)related? And, if everything in reality is without any reality apart from references to other things - which themselves are also without any reality whatsoever, then in what way is such a 'heavy' emptiness still empty of itself?

krodha wrote:
This presupposes 'mind' and 'ordinary objects' as viable qualities. Primordial wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes] is unqualified, non-emergent, non-dependent etc., however it is still completely and utterly empty and not established in any way. The mind cannot be liberated, but through recognition that the mind is unborn, liberation is achieved. For the Buddha (or any Buddha for that matter), he had passed beyond the notions of birth and death, as all contamination (ignorance) had been exhausted. The Buddha's condition is dharmakāya [tib. chos sku], which is emptiness free of the four extremes [existence, non-existence, both and neither]. It's not that everything in reality is without reality apart from references to other things, that would be a guise for svabhāva. Everything in reality is in truth unborn, only our ignorance mistakes that origination or cessation occurs in relation to any 'thing'.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 at 9:37 AM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
undefineable said:
I don't get the impression that the idea of object-consciousness springing into existence without prior conditions (of a similar nature) -rather than from a potential for sentient experience (prior to its specific contents) that you might label awareness- is a particularly Buddhist idea, so I suspect there's some context here - Perhaps Greg is talking exclusively about the more referential (fifth-skandha?) forms of consciousness, or perhaps he's just trying to fit views on reality into a concrete intellectual framework. Either way, without context, this quote implies -via an easily-locatable awareness- an easily-locatable mind, albeit in infinite numbers even within a single lifetime.

krodha wrote:
Not my quote, but he was differentiating between the 'brahmanesque' source-type awareness which subsumes phenomena, and the view that a freedom from extremes would take on this issue, it was for the benefit of someone coming from (what I suppose was) a neo-advaita background.

undefineable said:
Inherently existent awareness sounds pretty indigestible on its own (since our minds would then trap us in existential bubbles ), but a broader awareness might prove to be a fact of life in other ways. PadmaVonSamba often gives his take on awareness (as a kind of context?), and the fact remains that the contrasted philosophy of Advaita apparently proposes a mysterious substance -Brahman/God- as a necessary support to awareness/consciousness, rather than simply asserting awareness/consciousness as bare facts. It's easy to find out and grasp that the concept of Inherent Existence in Indian philosophy refers to something more than the everyday idea of 'this exists', even though we do tend to imagine existence in those more-substantial terms. {The whole concept of Substance seems to amount to the idea that object 'x' is so real that no mind could ever penetrate its mysteries, and although I've not even practiced enough to see that this is a myth, there's a mass of scientific findings that strongly suggest that it is - and that theism is wrong.}

krodha wrote:
The 'inherent' was referencing the Brahman of Vedanta, as opposed to emptiness (as presented in Buddhism).


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 at 3:46 AM
Title: Re: The throat chakra
Content:
Tirthan said:
Thanks, so obviously it is not the same for all traditions - Lama Thubten Yeshe was a Gelugpa -Master.
I am actually mainly Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche ´s student - I mostly do practices that He transmits. (You may know that Tenzin Wangyal was for sime period of His life closely co-operating with Namkhai Norbu ´s Dzogchen Community.)

krodha wrote:
I'm also a student of Norbu Rinpoche and for his visualizations (I'm of course no authority, but) I would say the general area is fine, just the throat in general. For example; for the OM AH HUNG visualization, the AH in the throat should actually be radiant with light and can be as big or small as you'd like, so if you feel unsure about where to place it, you can have it encompass the entire throat area if that helps. It's really whatever is best for you and what you feel resonates with your practice.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 at 2:45 AM
Title: Re: The throat chakra
Content:
Tirthan said:
Hello,
I have read in some text of Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche that the throat chakra is not situated in the center of the throat but rather lower, in the base of throat, where throat meets the body (don't remember the text but the information I know for sure).
But Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche is a teacher from Bonpo -tradition. So I am not sure if it is the same also for Buddhist tantra?
(Because some things differ very much - e.g. where Buddhists have OM Ah HUM, Bonpos have A OM HUM; the way Bonpos do 9 purification breathings differs too ...)

krodha wrote:
I know some traditions hold the throat chakra to be directly at the adam's apple, for instance in Lama Thubten Yeshe's Bliss of Inner Fire book he explicitly states "The throat chakra is located directly behind the Adam's apple". But you should go with whatever your teacher says, if Tenzin Wangyal is your teacher and says the throat chakra is in the base of the throat then that is right, it's more about the connection to the transmission and the lineage than anything.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
rachmiel said:
I know dis guy from my studies of Advaita Vedanta and Neo-Advaitan Non-Duality.

krodha wrote:
Yeah same guy, he's recently been doing a lot of work with the emptiness teachings though. Both emptiness and the Atmananda's direct path [advaita] are his main teachings he focuses on. I think he's more well known for his nonduality, awareness based teachings but he's been focusing more on emptiness lately, and does a great job, doesn't conflate the advaita view with the Buddhist emptiness at all. Here's his emptiness site: http://www.emptiness.co/


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 at 2:30 AM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Greg Goode had some good insight on this too:

monktastic said:
It may be useful to note, for rachmiel's sake, that Greg is not a Mahamudra teacher. Although I consider his amazing work to be of tremendous value to my own practice, he freely admits that he does not teach from a Mahamudra perspective. From a personal communication:

Greg Goode said:
I have just finished a book on the emptiness teachings, and my co-author is one of Dogchen Ponlop's students. Even so, we are taking the Gelug Prasangika approach to Madhyamika, not the Kagyu Mahamudra approach.

krodha wrote:
True, and even though Greg focuses more on the Gelug Prasaṅgika view (mainly Tsongkhapa etc.), the early Indian Prasaṅgika view accords very closely with the Dzogchen view, and so most of the great Nyingma key figures; Longchenpa, Mipham, Jigme Lingpa etc., all consider the early Prasaṅgika Madhyamaka expounded by Nāgārjuna to be a definitive view. Even though Greg isn't a Mahamudra teacher, some of the themes in the Prasaṅgika logic and reasoning can be very helpful in understanding Dzogchen. Both uphold a freedom from extremes as the correct view.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
Unknown said:
Being primordially pure of all constructs, the extreme of existence has been discarded. As the manifestation of awareness is spontaneously present, it is free from the extreme of nonexistence.--Mipham Rinpoche

krodha wrote:
Important to note that 'awareness' in the above quote is a perfect example of vidyā [rig pa] being translated as 'awareness'. Mipham is speaking of vidyā here, not awareness in the sense that we think of awareness. Mipham is talking about knowledge of primordial wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes].


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
krodha wrote:
Greg Goode had some good insight on this too:

Greg wrote:
Matt, when you say

'can someone show me how it's [awareness] not an eternal, non-separate essence?'

and

'as soon as you point to a phenomenon upon which awareness would be dependent, awareness was already there,'

are you assuming that awareness is one, single unified thing that is already there before objects are? That awareness is present whether objects are present or not?

That is a particular model. It sounds very similar to Advaita. But there are other models.

The emptiness teachings have a different model. Instead of one big awareness they posit many mind-moments or separate awarenesses. Each one is individuated by its own object. There is no awareness between or before or beyond objects. No awareness that is inherent. In this emptiness model, awareness is dependent upon its object. And as you point out, the object is dependent upon the awareness that apprehends it. But there is no underlying awareness that illuminates the entire show.

That's how these teachings account for experience while keeping awareness from being inherently existent.

This isn't the philosophy that denies awareness. That was materialism. We had a few materialists in the fb emptiness group, but they left when they found out that emptiness doesn't utterly deny awareness. So you see, there are people who do deny it... In the emptiness teachings, things depend on awareness, cognitiion, conceptualization, yes. But it is the other way around as well. Awareness depends on objects too.

----------------------

Greg wrote:
Speaking of *after* studying the emptiness teachings.... After beginning to study the emptiness teachings, the most dramatic and earth-shattering thing I realized the emptiness of was awareness, consciousness.

It came as an upside-down, inside-out BOOM, since I had been inquiring into this very point for a whole year. It happened while I was meditating on Nagarjuna's Treatise. Specifically verse IX:4, from “Examination of the Prior Entity.”

If it can abide
Without the seen, etc.,
Then, without a doubt,
They can abide without it.

I saw that a certain parity and bilateral symmetry is involved. If awareness can exist without its objects, then without a doubt, they can exist without awareness. True enough. Then there is a hidden line or two:

BUT - the objects CAN'T exist without awareness. Therefore, awareness can't exist without them. This was big for me.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 29th, 2013 at 1:31 AM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
monktastic said:
As they say in Dzogchen texts, it [subjective experience] is not nonexistent, because it clearly appears. Yet it is not existent, because it cannot be pinned down as this or that (i.e., assigning it physical characteristics leads to nonsense, as we see above).

rachmiel said:
Sweet. Resonates nicely.

So how about awareness, in its sense as a field of ... potential (?) in which mentation arises? (Not sure I got that quite right.) Is awareness similarly not nonexistent yet not existent?

krodha wrote:
For Dzogchen subjective experience only appears out of ignorance, so it does appear, but that doesn't mean it's not an adulteration or a mere byproduct of imputation (it is).

There is no awareness as a container (or field of potentiality) that things arise in. You also have to be careful with the whole neither existent nor nonexistent thing as well, because some individuals will interpret that vague border as a license to promulgate an awareness-anchored view.

Awareness isn't an autonomous and free standing quality and therefore it isn't something which can be found apart from that which it relies on... it's only a viable designation when it's in relation to a wide array of other co-emergent designations. This is the type of thing you'd have to do some investigative work with though. By going through the process of discovering all the ways in which awareness is dependent, all the qualities, characteristics, aspects, things etc. that it depends on. Both in the sense of other qualities and also constituent characteristics that would define 'awareness' as what you take it to be. And when you've exhausted that search you will wind up not being able to locate awareness but will only find what it depends on. From there you'll then have to turn the investigation to whatever seems to remain (whatever awareness was dependent on) and find the emptiness of those qualities as well.

In the end you might still uphold that 'things' depend upon awareness, but whatever it is you think depends upon awareness is merely a conventional notion, which doesn't withstand proper scrutiny. If you say time, space and thought depend on awareness, this is a presupposition, if you investigate that claim you'd see that it can go the other way around as well. There's no ontological hierarchy to these apparent designations apart from the one we insist upon. Awareness is only primary if we say so. If we skillfully investigate a claim of that nature we can discover that within these alleged structures nothing is truly produced.

The investigation is reconciling and resolving the presuppositions of inherency which allow other suppositions to be anchored in our experiences. So it's an endeavor which starts untying knots so to say. When we resolve the emptiness of one designation we find that another designation which depended on that-which-was-just-resolved starts to lose its footing as well. You're pulling cards out of the house of cards.. It's like the game jenga, pretty soon the whole thing topples. What's left is inexpressible because to capture it defines something and that definition directly results in another co-emergent designation which in turn spawns another... ad infinitum, so it's said to be ungraspable. There is nothing which did not arise due to clinging and grasping.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 25th, 2013 at 4:57 AM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
rachmiel said:
Please help me understand the Buddhist takes on these key terms. I'm hoping they can be "defined" in just a few words, i.e. the essence sans ornamentation ... ?

mind: ...

consciousness: ...

awareness: ...

krodha wrote:
'Mind' usually refers to the experiencing continuum of a sentient being in its entirety. Which means deluded dualistic perception governed by ignorance [skt. avidyā, tib. ma rig pa]. Subjectivity which naturally implies objectivity and that dichotomy as a whole. A sentient being is the opposite of a Buddha, Buddhas are not deluded. Mind would be the sum of the consciousnesses. The term 'mind' may also (sometimes) be attributed solely to the stream of thought and memory, like it is traditionally in the west, though more often than not mind will simply signify the afflicted condition of a sentient being.

'Consciousness' is a term attributed to the different sensory modalities and their respective streams of experience. The collection of consciousnesses are set up in groups of 6 or 8 depending on the tradition, including the 5 traditional senses plus memory, emotional imprints etc. for the additional consciousnesses. Consciousness is also deluded and arises as a result of ignorance. The senses; sensory organs, sensory fields are likewise products of ignorance. A Buddha is divested of these faculties and recognizes them to be empty (meaning lacking inherent existence, dependently originated and/or free from extremes).

'Awareness' would be synonymous with consciousness, though it can perhaps be attributed to a subtle dualistic reference point as well. There has been a prominent trend to translate the term 'rig pa' [skt. vidyā] as 'awareness', and so you may often see rigpa translated as 'awareness' in dzogchen and mahamudra texts. Unfortunately this trend is misrepresentative of rigpa, which is more accurately a discerning knowledge of primordial wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes]. 'Awareness' suggests (i) awareness of something, and (ii) also suggests a neutral indeterminate cognizance, both are misrepresentative of rigpa (which is best left untranslated).

Buddhism is more concerned with emptiness. Mind, consciousness and awareness are all empty, there is nothing which isn't empty.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 24th, 2013 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Question about "location of mind"
Content:
krodha wrote:
Honestly the entire 'brain based' model can be disregarded entirely when it comes to dharma inquiry and practice. The brain and body of course do have conventional relevance, however if one insists that the scientific theories are inherently and ultimately true, all that is accomplished is the championing of a materialist/physicalist view. A view which is extremely defeating when it comes to the ways in which the dharma can liberate one from all of our misconceptions. The brain and it's supremacy is relatively valid when it comes to our physiological functioning, but always remember it is something you learned, and therefore it is a notion you hold onto and have to conjure up to explain away experience. It is nothing but a thought, and you do not experience thought, located in a brain, in your direct experience. The brain is never experienced in your direct experience.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 23rd, 2013 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: The Purpose of Thogal Practice
Content:
krodha wrote:
Thögal is (using the term 'process' loosely) the process of reverting the five elements into their natural state as the five wisdom lights.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 23rd, 2013 at 4:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Mahamudra experiences
Content:
krodha wrote:
Some questions about Dzogchen and Mahamudra differences came up recently in a discussion with Malcolm:

Malcolm wrote:
While it is standard idea that buddhahood realized through sutrayāna is not complete, the realization of Mahamudra and the realization of Dzogchen are completely identical. The path however is very different and the way the term "rigpa" is used in various traditions varies. For example, what the term "rig pa" means in Mahamudra literature is a little different than what it means in Dzogchen because the explanation of the basis, path and result is completely different.

Q: Malcolm, it surprises me that you equate the realizations so downright. I've gotten the impression that there are actual differences between the two culminations. Nothing would satisfy my synthesizing brain more, and that's exactly why I'm weary of thinking that their fruit is equal. What about thogal? At the moment, Mahamudra resonates more with me.

Malcolm wrote:
The result of Mahamudra and Dzogchen are completely identical, only the path is different. But we do not talk about "rig pa" on the path of Mahamudra in the same way it is used in Dzogchen. The basic difference is the Mahamudra works from the outside in via the two stages. Dzogchen works from the inside out. Between the two, Dzogchen is less dependent on mind, and is therefore more rapid. Gampopa's Mahamudra teachings are very influenced by Dzogchen Semsde.

Q: Two stages? And what kind of a difference in rapidness are we talking?

Malcolm wrote:
Mostly, it is a matter of effort, Dzogchen is easier than practicing deity yoga, doing tummo, etc. Dzogchen is for lazy people who are in a hurry.

Q: Mahamudra necessarily entails deity yoga, tummo, etc.? How come the realization of the teachings of the historical Buddha are considered not complete?

Malcolm wrote:
In general, Mahamudra entails deity yoga, etc. Mahamudra is the state of realizing one's state through a yidam such as Kalacakra or the other way to realize Mahamudra is through Guru Yoga. These are the two paths of Mahamudra. The teachings of the Agamas/NIkayas resuilts solely in the eradication of afflictions, not the attainment of omniscience. Mahayāna (Zen, etc.) also only takes one to the eleventh bhumi, and not total buddhahood (thirteenth bhumi).

Q: I don't see how the four yogas fit into the two steps/paths you mention. Is there something I'm missing?

Malcolm wrote:
Yes, the four yogas are practiced alongside the two stages/guru yoga by most practitioners. The four yogas technically are part of sutra mahamudra, actually, according to how it is presented by Kongtrul. They are presented as part of Mahamudra in the five fold system of Drikung and Drukpa, but this is integrated with creation stage and Guru Yoga.

Q: And they parallel the four naljors of Dzogchen Semde, yes? You mention "sutra mahamudra". I've heard the distinction before, but I don't understand what it distinguishes from mantra/tantra and essence mahamudra. Will you clarify? Also, if the path of mahamudra and dzogchen is dissimilar, why do we find the 4 yogas and the 4 naljors in parallel? It's not that I haven't studied this, but it induced confidence to get it confirmed.
Unknown said:
"The Sutrayana approach to Mahamudra is seen as a very profound method because it does not require any of the sophisticated and complex tantric rituals, deity yoga practices, or samayas. It is a very simple sutra approach, yet it conveys the direct transmission of the tantric essence of awakening." 
- excerpt from 'Wild Awakening'



krodha wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
According to a personal communication to me from Khenpo Tsultrim Gyatso, Sutra Mahamudra was contrived by Gampopa for those who were not ready for Tantra. In sutra mahamudra there is no empowerment and no samayas, etc. Essence Mahamudra is based on a specific type of empowerment called the descent of the wisdom vajra (CF Jnanasiddhi by Indrabhuti), and the tantric mahamudra involves the practice of the two stages. The former is more a path of Guru Yoga, the latter, of course, the two stages. Sutra Tantra and Essence Mahamudra is a system of the Karma Kagyu, It does not exist in the other Kagyu schools. In Drukpa and Drikung, the four yogas are included as part of the Sahaja Mahamudra, but this also depends on a kind of introduction. Usually a Cakrasamvara or a Vajrayogini empowerment.

Q: When for example, the Mahamudra talks about the realization of one taste as "liberation from the duality of perceiver and perceived" and "by the power of the multiplicity of all phenomena appearing as one taste, the expansion of the great expression of wisdom, the realization of one taste itself manifesting as multiplicity" Would you say such description is related to the 13th bhumi apprehension of all phenomena as being the display of his own wisdom?

Malcolm wrote:
One taste is not total realization. The result of Mahamudra according to the four yogas is achieved only at greater non-meditation. Even first stage bodhisattvas are free from the duality of dualistic perception while in a state of equipoise.

Q: Malcolm Smith you said that the Mahamudra result is the same as Dzogchen, does that mean a Mahamudra practitioner will realize primordial state through their own empowerments? How about say, an 11th bhumi Zen practitioner? Does that practitioner realize primordial state?

Malcolm wrote:
The difference [in realization between 11th and 13th bhumis], as recounted in such tantras as the Samputa, etc, is that a buddha of the eleventh or twelfth bhumi does not apprehend all phenomena as being the display of his own wisdom. This is more or less the classical Indian presentation of Vajrayāna path structures generally followed in Sakya and Nyingma. The Kagyus on the other hand consider the eleventh and twelfth bhumis to be bodhisattva stages rather than stages of buddhahood. But in general the Kagyus, like the Gelupgas, are in many respects more influenced by Sutra than Sakya and Nyingma.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 23rd, 2013 at 3:32 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Mahamudra experiences
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Hello,

I have a question about the practice of Dzogchen and Mahamudra.

- What would be the real difference regarding the experience between a Mahasiddha and a Dzogchenpa ?
- Where do we have THAT certain difference and where does it start in the practice ?

I do know it on paper some differences but how does it look like in the practice?

Thanks at beforehand for your attention

Best wishes
KY

krodha wrote:
The end result is the same, but the paths are different. Mahamudra in general is generation stage [mahayoga] and completion stage [anuyoga], so it is quite different from Dzogchen in that respect. There is Essence (formless) Mahamudra, but apart from the four yogas, Essence Mahamudra is resting in the state of Mahamudra, which ends up being essentially equivalent to the practice of Tregchö in Dzogchen. The four yogas also being essentially Gampopa's rendition of the four naljors of Dzogchen semde.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 15th, 2013 at 1:51 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
If we maintain that dualistic mind is equivalent to primordial wisdom then what is the point of the dharma?

gregkavarnos said:
The text does not say it is equivalent, it says that the source of all reality is primordial wisdom.  Like cheese comes from milk, but is not milk.

krodha wrote:
That works... so cheese arises from milk, yet forgets it's milk nature and suffers (even though it's delicious), cheese then discovers the dharma, recognizes it's milk nature, trains in it's milk nature and becomes milk again, voilà!


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 15th, 2013 at 1:35 PM
Title: Re: The difference between causation and reflection
Content:
krodha wrote:
Malabeads here's a lot of blah, blah, blah conceptualization (or my blah, blah, blah conceptual interpretation I mean):

Causation would refer to the proliferation of the conditioned phenomena of dualistic mind. The phenomena of dualistic mind and ignorance originate dependently and therefore depend upon causes and conditions to exist. The condition is ignorance [avidyā], and the causation is the interdependent origination which occurs due to attachment and aversion. The mind beguiled by avidyā perceives duality and therefore acts and reacts from within that delusion. Those actions (of attachment and aversion), along with the subtle habits which sustain the ignorance, are one's karma. To overcome karma (causation) the mind which is trapped in delusion must be recognized as empty so that the foundation for karma's proliferation is disarmed. The knowledge which results from recognizing the mind's nature is vidyā [rig pa]. Stabilization and familiarization with vidyā will make it so a) new karma isn't being generated and/or b) the influence of karma which is being generated is greatly diminished. Once vidyā is stable, the latent karma, which resides in the form of propensities, then has to exhaust itself, the fuel which kept the fire going is removed so karma just burns out.

In vidyā, the aspirant recognizes that ignorance and the deluded mind are causes and conditions for phenomena. This is because vidyā is knowledge of the basis [skt. sthāna, tib. gzhi] i.e. primordial wisdom [skt. jñāna, tib. ye shes]. The basis is incapable of ignorance, so it has never been involved in affliction at any time. The basis also doesn't depend upon causes and conditions, and so one could say the basis is uncaused, but usually the basis is termed as self-originated primordial wisdom. Self-origination can also be looked at as unafflicted dependent origination i.e. spontaneous natural formation which is completely unestablished in any way. Spontaneous natural formation is lhun grub, and because lhun grub is inseparable from ka dag (primordial purity); from the perspective of primordial wisdom there is no establishment nor unestablishment of anything at any time (freedom from the four extremes). That is why the analogy of reflection is often used, because a mirror's capacity to reflect is never adulterated or sullied by reflections, and in addition to being dynamic and able to appear as anything, the mirror's capacity to reflect is also inseparable from the reflections. Primordial wisdom is the same way: wisdom's capacity to manifest appearances is never adulterated or sullied by those appearances, and in addition to being dynamic and able to appear as anything, primordial wisdom is also inseparable from empty appearance (empty, meaning free from extremes i.e. illusory).

Something I wrote awhile ago...
"...The mirror-analogy is commonly used in attempting to describe the 'nature of mind' and there is a common misconception which tends to arise from this analogy because the implementation of a mirror seems to convey a substantiated background (or unchanging source). I was attempting to point out that the analogy isn't meant to explore the mirror in itself as an unchanging basis, but solely the mirror's capacity to reflect. So the capacity is the aspect the analogy is exploring. Equating the nature of mind to the mirror's reflective capacity (but not the mirror itself). That the reflections are inseparable from that capacity, just like AEN elucidated with the fire-to-heat and water-to-wetness examples. That capacity isn't a conceivable quality, it isn't something which can be 'known' as a substantiated suchness. The capacity (to reflect) cannot be rolled, thrown or bounced, it has no shape, color, location, weight or height. There is nothing there one can point to and declare 'there it is!'. Yet in it's elusiveness it is still fully apparent in the presence of the reflections themselves. The capacity is evident because of the reflections and the reflections are evident because of the capacity, in truth they co-emergent and mutually interdependent qualities which are completely inseparable. Evident, clear and pure, yet unestablished, ungraspable and ephemeral."

Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche used the capacity aspect as well in one of his Longde books....

"Our primordial potentiality is beyond form, but we have a symbol, and when we have a symbol then we can get in that knowledge. It is very easy to understand with an example. If you want to discover the potentiality of a mirror, how can you go about it? You can neither see or touch the nature or potentiality of a mirror, nor can you have contact with it in any ordinary way, the only way is to look in a mirror, and then the reflections will appear and through the reflections you can discover it. The reflections are not really the potentiality of the mirror but they are manifesting through that potentiality, so they are something visible for us. With this example we can get in the knowledge of the potentiality of the mirror...."
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

"Why then do we have this symbol of primordial potentiality? Primordial potentiality in the Dzogchen teaching is explained with three principles: sound, light and rays. This does not mean that sound, light and rays are manifestations, but rather that these are the root of all manifestations. When you have this potentiality then there is always the possibility of manifestations. If we wonder, for example what the potentiality of a mirror looks like, we couldn't say very much, we could say for example that it is clear, pure, limpid and so forth, but we could not really have contact with it directly through our senses. In the same way sound, light and rays are the essence of potentiality. When we have this potentiality, if secondary causes arise, then anything can manifest. 
What do we mean by secondary causes? For example, if in front of a mirror there is tree, or a flower or a person, the object instantly manifests. These are secondary causes. So if there is no secondary cause there is no manifestation. Thus in front of our primordial potentiality there are all the possibilities of manifestation of the secondary causes....."
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 11th, 2013 at 8:39 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
Holybla said:
You guys like to stroke each other that's all that's happening here.

krodha wrote:
Hmm yes we're talking dharma on a dharma forum...

Greg and I are having a friendly conversation I don't see the harm. What else would you have us do Holybla?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 11th, 2013 at 12:51 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Likewise dualistic mind and avidyā aren't primordial wisdom, but arise adventitiously as a result of primordial wisdom's dynamism.

gregkavarnos said:
That is like saying an apple tree is not an apple tree because it arose from an apple seed and not an apple tree.

krodha wrote:
It's like the rope and snake metaphor; dualistic mind and phenomena which appear to be conditioned are like the snake lying in the road, however if the apparent snake is properly scrutinized it's discovered to be merely a rope. Once the rope is apperceived it's understood that the snake was only ever confusion and ignorance, and therefore the snake is unborn, non-arisen etc. The rope never directly manifested the delusion of the snake, the rope was a rope, displaying itself as a rope the whole time. However through our confusion a snake apparently originated. The snake was an error, and likewise the misconceptions of dualistic mind are errors.

If we maintain that dualistic mind is equivalent to primordial wisdom then what is the point of the dharma? It's soteriological value and purpose would be rendered redundant and void. Dualistic mind and ignorance are rtsal at root, however they aren't wisdom display. It's all primordial wisdom all along, but it's recognition or non-recognition of that which is the point of dzogchen. If we recognize primordial wisdom, then that is vidyā [rig pa], which is one's foundation for practice to achieve liberation. If we don't recognize primordial wisdom then that is avidyā [ma rig pa], which is the foundation for delusion and suffering.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 11:43 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
The tantra itself does not seem to draw a distinction between mind and the natural state.  It shows a seamless continuity, not two seperate entities.  To "argue" that there is the mind and there is the natural state, cannot really be justified on the basis of the text.

krodha wrote:
Not two separate entities per se, but the two possible paths which result due to recognition or non-recognition.

gregkavarnos said:
To say that the text merely outlines deluded mind also does not seem to be warranted.  The text seems to be outlining the process whereby appearances are generated out of the natural state.  By this token it would be like saying that fuel, spark and fire are seperate.

krodha wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that it solely outlines dualistic mind, just noting that what may appear to be merely outlining the natural state is in truth also discussing the process of straying into duality as well (and the subsequent implications), even though that isn't overtly apparent. The natural state issues sound, light and rays however that phenomena is unborn, emptiness free from extremes. It's only when emptiness isn't recognized that appearance is mistaken as objective phenomena and the delusion of origination occurs. The five wisdom lights are adulterated into the five elements. The elements are the lights all along however our ignorance obscures recognition of that.

Rather than the fuel, spark, fire metaphor I think the sun to clouds one frames the relationship between primordial wisdom [ye shes] and mind well; that the sun simply displays its radiance and heat, and when that heat interacts with water vapor, clouds are formed which then obscure the sun. The sun is still shining all along, however by force of its own innate qualities certain causes and conditions arise which veil it. The clouds aren't a part of the sun, but arise adventitiously as an expression of it's dynamism. Likewise dualistic mind and avidyā aren't primordial wisdom, but arise adventitiously as a result of primordial wisdom's dynamism.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 9:59 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
krodha wrote:
It's definitely a topic which is a point of departure for people, I had a recent conversation with Jax where he vehemently opposed the kun byed rgyal po being the dualistic mind, Malcolm didn't write much but also maintained his position that it's the mind which is being referenced:

Jax wrote:
Kyle Dixon, so as you now see both you and Malcolm were wrong as per my quotes... And JL's comments had nothing to do with our conversation. Like I said: Boy, Kyle are you wrong:

From the Kunje Gyalpo Tantra: "Kunje Gyalpo declares: I am primordial self-perfection. I am the essence of of the state of self-perfection of all the Buddhas"

Namkhai Norbu writes: "The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is AdiBuddha, or the primordial Buddha, Kunje Gyalpo. The state of Kunje Gyalpo is knowledge (rigpa)..."

So admit you were wrong again Kyle along with your wrong concept about "emptiness being the result of the 4th vision of thogal, and your about face regarding Zhantong. You need to get out your books again and try to memorize this stuff... or just practice.

--------------

I wrote:
Jean-Luc's comments had everything to do with what we're discussing, he was addressing the very fact that the 'All-Creating King' is the mind.

As for Malcolm Smith being wrong, I would disagree and it's unfortunate you'd make such a claim. 

I have no issue with making mistakes from time to time and admitting it, I don't allow for my confirmation biases to blind me from seeking the truth. When I recognize that I must admit wrong in my life, I do it with pride, because that is the only way I (and others) can grow. 

Petty of me to do so but, may I point out that you weren't even aware that the realization of emptiness was associated with any of the visions (and you claim to teach that practice). I really have no position on Zhantong, it appears to be no different than Advaita Vedanta, but great masters such as Dudjom Rinpoche have proclaimed that it has useful application in practice so I remain open to it. I'm fairly unconcerned with that view, that is your own interest.

--------------

Jax wrote:
Of course Malcolm was wrong. Didn't you read the quotes from the KJG Tantra and Norbu? Hello???

--------------

Malcolm wrote:
Wrong about what?

--------------

I wrote:
According to Jax, the following two quotes from Norbu Rinpoche's kun byed rgyal po translation refute your statement that the mind is the all-creating king:

From the Kunje Gyalpo Tantra: "Kunje Gyalpo declares: I am primordial self-perfection. I am the essence of of the state of self-perfection of all the Buddhas"

Namkhai Norbu writes: "The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is AdiBuddha, or the primordial Buddha, Kunje Gyalpo. The state of Kunje Gyalpo is knowledge (rigpa)..."

--------------

Malcolm wrote:
Oh, well jax just has to read more carefully and thoroughly.

--------------

Jax wrote:
Jax has to read "what" more thoroughly and carefully? The texts I posted were quite clear and carefully read before I posted them. The discussion was "What does the Kunje Gyalpo, "The All Creating Monarch" represent? 

Kyle Dixon said "The all creating king indeed does represent ignorance since phenomena only arise from ignorance... The all creating king is the mind... not the gzhi, nor is it the dharmakaya, nor is it samantabhadra since those 3 are never involved in ignorance."

Jax: Now here are the correct facts: From the Kunje Gyalpo Tantra:

"Kunje Gyalpo declares: I am primordial self-perfection. I am the essence of of the state of self-perfection of all the Buddhas"

Namkhai Norbu writes: "The transmission of knowledge comes from the state of rigpa that has never been stained and has never been hindered. This is AdiBuddha, or the primordial Buddha, Kunje Gyalpo. The state of Kunje Gyalpo is knowledge (rigpa)..."

I rest my case and have no further reason to argue regarding what the Kunje Gyalpo means in Dzogchen. It does not mean as Kyle said it represents "ignorance". Rather it represents our primordial State as Rigpa or perfect Buddha Wisdom Mind.

--------------

Malcolm wrote:
Chnn has said more about this than is what in your citation.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 9:49 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
But for a) those who are caught in ignorance [avidyā], or b), are fluctuating in their integration [unripened vidyā]; the words are not dzogchen because they're being related to dualistically (they are wisdom essentially, but that's irrelevant because it's recognition or non-recognition which is the deciding factor).

gregkavarnos said:
Hmmmmm... "Oh great bodhisattva, listen! Things are made in a perfect manner. This is so because I am the nature of perfection. I shall show you My own being. Because My own being is non-conceptual and uncreated, I have made [things] as to exist in the realm of Reality (chos dbyings). They do not rest on anything else but the mind of perfect purity. As My own being is immaculate and all-pervasive [the things] do not rest upon anything else but on the self-originated awareness itself in the mansion of awareness, i.e the lurid sky. As I am the central vigor of all things which come into existence, i.e. the five great [elements], the threefold world, the six categories [of sentient beings]: they are nothing else but My form, utterance and spirit. I have established [the things] as My own being. I am revealing to you the Buddhas of the three times and the sentient beings of the threefold world as My own being. Because My actuating essence is unborn, and non-conceptual, it does not exist (mi gnas), but transcends all areas of perception. It even transcends the objects of meditation and does not become apparent in mental absorption. Although My own being is imperceptible, I reveal My actuation to you as the threefold world, [consisting of] the five great [elements], and the six categories [of sentient beings]. From the five [elements] which are the apparent [form of My] own being, i.e. the perfect and pure mind, come the five self-originated and vigorous awarenesses. The five awarenesses bring forth the five sensual objects; after the five desires have come forth the five passions come forth. The five passions bring their individual results which individually appear as the six categories of the sentient beings. I am teaching you the appearance [of the universe] to be like that.
The All-Creating Sovereign, Mind of Perfect Purity, Chapter 6

krodha wrote:
The kun byed rgyal po is an interesting tantra, and I totally agree that the way it reads comes off as if it's suggesting that everything is perfect across the board from the very beginning, even ignorance, but one interesting point I've come across is that the kun byed rgyal po or 'All-Creating Monarch' is the mind, rather than the natural state.

Here's a question Soh Wei Yu (posts here as Xabir) asked Malcolm awhile ago:

Soh wrote:
"Hi Namdrol,

As you mentioned about Hindu Vedanta... a question came to mind.

I was just reading someone's post half an hour ago in another forum: ( http://collectionofthoughts.com/bbpress/topic/1499/page/7?replies=200 ). 

He/she ('star') states that according to Dzogchen view, everything is Consciousness, and therefore everything is real.

What is your comment on this?

Also, he/she states 'The Supreme Source' as a reference... in which I also personally have some questions regarding this book: in certain parts of the book, Consciousness is described as an all-creating agent, which sounds like God to me. How does Dependent Origination apply here?"

Malcolm wrote:
"This person has confused the Trika non-dual view with Dzogchen.

The mind that is the all-creating king, as Norbu Rinpoche makes clear, is the mind that does not recognize itself, and so enters into samsara, creating its own experience of samsara. 

All conditioned phenomena are a product of ignorance, according to Dzogchen view, and so therefore, everything is not real. The basis of that ignorance is the basis, which is also not established as real. 

In Dzogchen, everything is unreal, from top to bottom. The basis, in Dzogchen, is described as being 'empty not established in any way at all'. If the basis is not real, then whatever arises from that basis is not real. 

In Dzoghen, dependent origination begins from the non-recognition of the state of the basis, when this happens, one enters into grasping self and other, and then the chain of dependent origination begins."

---------------------

And Jean-Luc Achard has said the same:

? wrote:
"That quote above still can be interpreted the same way. The Kunjed Gyalpo says that there is nothing to do, try, search etc... Because everything is from the Supreme Source, thus perfect. There is not two sources, but one. Then what can possibly be 'perfected' ?"

Jean-Luc Achard wrote:
"Supreme Source is not a Dzogchen concept. I don’t know (well i suspect) why they choosed this title (way too New Age for me) but the original is 'All Creating' (kun-byed, lit. 'All Doing') refering to the mind. So mind creates everything, that’s the meaning, its not a reference to some cosmic source somewhere as it may sound from the english title. What can be perfected? Well one’s deluded mind can be perfected, certainly not the natural state. Nobody said the natural state has to be perfected, it’s one’s ultimate essence, but our ordinary being is not our essence, it is deluded, full of ignorance, and this is what has to be perfected."


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 8:17 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
krodha wrote:
Isn't it 'birds of a feather, flock together'?... Maybe hugging together is the saying where you're from I dunno. And ok discussion over, except ka dag and lhun grub aren't really proper equivalents to the two-truths. Vidyā and avidyā is the dzogchen treatment. Vidyā the single truth, everything else falling under avidyā, including conventionality. Although even non-dzogchenpas uphold the same - Nagarjuna states; "Since the Jinas have proclaimed nirvana alone is true, what wise person would not understand the rest is false?"


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 7:30 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
Holybla said:
Respectfully, I say one should not use Dzogchen to prove points.

krodha wrote:
Aren't you also using dzogchen to prove a point?

Holybla said:
If someone asks, what is the base? You can answer that. But to use points from the transmission to debate is a misuse of Dzogchen teachings.

krodha wrote:
You're also using points from transmission to 'debate' (although I'd say this is more of a discussion).

Holybla said:
If someone says, I am having trouble sleeping how can Dzogchen help? You can advise how to take Bimala and maybe do Mandarava chulen or something like that. Demonstrating your proficiency with Tibetanisms is not showing Dzogchen at all.

krodha wrote:
I never claimed to be showing dzogchen, and trust me knowing a few tibetan (and sanskrit) terms is a far cry from a proficiency.

Holybla said:
I understand you feel we are conflicting now so you say "likewise."

krodha wrote:
I'd hardly call this a conflict, you have your opinion, I have one too, and we sit online and throw them around, it's a good time if you ask me! I was saying "likewise" to point out that if you don't hold yourself to your own standards, you're creating a double-standard.

Holybla said:
But truthfully, transmission and GY are indeed indispensable to Dzogchen. Nothing else is.

krodha wrote:
True, but when you twist guru yoga and transmission into a weapon, which is then wielded against another point of view, you're rendering guru yoga and transmission equivalent to whatever intellectual vomit I'm sharing. It's the intellect that accepts and rejects, conventionally we do accept and reject on here and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's important to watch that subtle slip. Guru yoga as a notion, translated by mind is simply another point of view (you're using to argue against another point of view). I'm about to do the same here but I admit it; guru yoga is guru yoga, the experience, free of mind. That's why it's pointless to debate about dzogchen (though I like to!)

Holybla said:
Everything else including intellectual ideas are secondary. Intellectual ideas are low on the totem pole of important methods to help gain the view. Once the view is obtained and stable, secondary practices and especially intellectual ideas are passé. At that point, we use letters, syllables and words only to entice the uninitiated, but never to condition or convince. The main way to make connections and help sentient beings are part of transmission.

krodha wrote:
Also true, however again the intellect can be a useful tool and should be understood, not rejected. On the outset yes it's beneficial to use the traditional methods which don't involve the intellect, however after that point I'd say it's better to create a more overarching and holistic relationship with one's experience, understand how the intellect becomes an obstacle, and the ways to relate to the intellect that are beneficial. There are no limitations once vidyā is definitively recognized. Dzogchen doesn't give credence to the conventional/ultimate dichotomy, however that doesn't mean that the conventional is thrown out the window... and that being the case, it's important to put these things in perspective.

"By examining relative truth, establish absolute truth;
Within absolute truth, see how relative truth arises.
Where the two truths are inseparable, beyond intellect,
is the state of simplicity."
- Dilgo Khyenste Rinpoche

Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche also said during this present retreat; (paraphrased) through the wisdom of vidyā, seek to understand yourself, and by understanding your condition you will be able to relax, through relaxation you will be able to relate to your experience in a way that makes life easy and enjoyable. So there's no issue implementing the discernment gained in vidyā to know yourself, know your condition, understand yourself, understand others, understand thoughts, how we fall into delusion etc... find what works for you and become a master of your domain. The universe trembles in front of the vidyādhara.

"It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle." - Sun Tzu


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 6:39 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
No one has suggested that the words are dzogchen...

gregkavarnos said:
You are saying that there is something that is not the nature of mind?

krodha wrote:
Kinda depends on the individual, wouldn't you agree? For the practitioner who is stabilized in the natural state, thoughts, concepts etc., arise as wisdoms. However if one isn't stable in their vidyā, it's important to tentatively discriminate between sems [energy of primordial wisdom adulterated into dualistic conceptual thinking i.e. an intellect] and rtsal [the same phenomena left in it's natural state divested of grasping and clinging]. For someone resting in the natural state, yeah the words are dzogchen. But for a) those who are caught in ignorance [avidyā], or b), are fluctuating in their integration [unripened vidyā]; the words are not dzogchen because they're being related to dualistically (they are wisdom essentially, but that's irrelevant because it's recognition or non-recognition which is the deciding factor).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 6:16 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
Holybla said:
@asun...

Description of base isn't reasoning. Dzogchen is your nature not logic. Recognition depend on transmission. It's that simple indeed. The transmission isn't anything to do with talk about Karma. Ati GY and presence is awareness of ones karmic situation.

asunthatneversets said:
I never suggested one's nature was logic, nor did I suggest recognition occurs independent of transmission. I agree the rigpai tsalwang doesn't have anything to do with talk of karma, however there is no harm in understanding karma and how it functions, the cause of delusion, what fuels the fire of delusion and what extinguishes it. We're all here on an internet forum to discuss dzogchen, and we all use concepts, words, ideas, interpretations, translations, language etc., to communicate, there's no harm in doing so. No one has suggested that the words are dzogchen, but we are all free do discuss dzogchen (subject matter appropriate for a public forum of course).


Holybla said:
I'm saying nothing you said so far is indispensable to understanding dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
Likewise.

Holybla said:
Dzogchen is not a school. But you said what someone needs to know. Distinguishing mind and nature isn't intellectual.

krodha wrote:
There are no limitations to what can be a support for practice and understanding. Traditionally, studying dzogchen, the tantras etc., is seen as one of the many aspects of vidyā [rig pa], which in the Bön tradition is referred to as bsam rig. (i) Bsam rig is one of the three main modalities of vidyā which are most frequently associated with the dzogchen teachings, flanked on either side by (ii) khyab rig (equivalent to the tathāgatagarbha i.e. buddha nature which is our innate potentiality for buddhahood) and (iii) ye rig, which is precisely the knowledge of the natural state implemented as the foundation for one's practice in dzogchen. Jean-Luc Achard states that bsam rig [knowing discernment] "is the knowledge you generate when you study and get experiences of the teachings (it is a fluctuating phenomenon according to the capacities of the individual; the more you study correctly, the more you Knowing Discernement is developed)".

So for the skilled individual, the intellect can be a beneficial ally in generating proper discernment when it comes to our nature, it isn't a mandatory requirement, but it's not something to be rejected either. After all, only the intellect rejects the intellect, when authentically resting in one's nature, thoughts arise as wisdoms and there is nothing to accept or reject. As long as a practitioner can effectively discriminate between the primordial wisdom's [ye shes] dynamism [rtsal], and that which arises as an expression (or adulteration) of that dynamism [the intellect i.e. sems, etc.], thoughts are not a hinderance, they simply self-arise and self-liberate timelessly (as non-arisen wisdom display) and 'remain in their own condition' as Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche often says.

Per Loppön Malcolm Smith:
"In Ati these days, conceited elephants [claim]
the mass of discursive concepts is awakened mind (bodhicitta);
this confusion is a dimension of complete darkness, 
a hindrance to the meaning of the natural great perfection..."

Same quote continued in an alternate translation:
"...If one cannot even differentiate dynamic energy [rtsal] and that which arises from dynamic energy [sems, etc.],
what is the use in talking about the essence of the awakened mind?"

Norbu Rinpoche actually just said it today in his teaching; limitations are self-imposed. Discerning vidyā and sems is a vital aspect of the teaching, however it's important not to fall into a trap where sems is rejecting sems (thought is rejecting thought), all that accomplishes is sustaining distraction (meaning breathing life into the delusion that a point of reference [subject] stands apart from thoughts [objects] which sequence consecutively in a given span of time and can be either accepted and/or rejected).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
Holybla said:
@asun...

Description of base isn't reasoning. Dzogchen is your nature not logic. Recognition depend on transmission. It's that simple indeed. The transmission isn't anything to do with talk about Karma. Ati GY and presence is awareness of ones karmic situation.

krodha wrote:
I never suggested one's nature was logic, nor did I suggest recognition occurs independent of transmission. I agree the rigpai tsalwang doesn't have anything to do with talk of karma, however there is no harm in understanding karma and how it functions, the cause of delusion, what fuels the fire of delusion and what extinguishes it. We're all here on an internet forum to discuss dzogchen, and we all use concepts, words, ideas, interpretations, translations, language etc., to communicate, there's no harm in doing so. No one has suggested that the words are dzogchen, but we are all free do discuss dzogchen (subject matter appropriate for a public forum of course).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Some excellent points being made here! (a big to jnana and asunthat neversets)

krodha wrote:
Big to you as well!


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 3:40 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
Holybla said:
I never assumed anything of the sort. Again, I'm only relating why my teacher says. I'm sorry if I offended you. I have no idea what level you or anyone might be and don't care. My point is Dzogchen is always redirecting the mind back to the nature of mind. Rinpoche's comments on cause and effect are limited to what you just said, be aware. That's it. There's really nothing he has to say about details of cause and effect, etc. His point he always reiterates is not to engage in analysis. Go with the introduction and GY. I'm only wanting to emphasize that part.

krodha wrote:
The point is to understand what it is that obscures the nature of mind, which is the causes and conditions that arise as a result of our karma or habitual tendencies to reify delusion. Recognizing one's nature and maintaining that recognition isn't so simple. Maintaining presence throughout the day etc., is good in that it curbs the proclivity to breathe life into affliction, however being present and aware isn't enough, the point is to recognize the natural state, and depending on the level of delusion that is present in one's condition, that may not be as simple as you suggest.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 10th, 2013 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
Holybla said:
People say cause and effect, cause and effect, and it sounds scientific. But Buddha meant something completely different. He's saying, we are self-generating this whole dream. Not that it comes from somewhere.

asunthatneversets said:
Right but that is precisely the cause and effect: because of our ignorance (cause), all the myriad originations apparently arise and are attributed validity (effect).

as Nagarjuna states:
"When the perfect vidyā sees,
That things come from ignorance as condition,
Nothing will then be objectified,
Either in terms of arising or destruction."

Holybla said:
Again, Dzogchen doesn't follow these lines of reasoning. The master gives a direct introduction without recourse to analysis. Now, this is where the rubber hits the road: You said, "All the myriad originations apparently arise," but they don't actually arise. So nothing actually caused anything. Without the factors of an actual object, or an actual action, there's no actual cause and effect. The "delusion" is just like acting. If you are not acting, where's the story?

krodha wrote:
On the contrary, Dzogchen specifically follows this line of reasoning. The teaching of dzogchen is very much concerned with how ignorance arises, the factors that maintain it and how to dispel it from one's condition. The dzogchen model is one basis [Skt. sathāna, Tib. gzhi] and two paths [vidyā and avidyā]. If the basis' [gzhi] display is recognized to be self-display, then one has recognized vidyā [Tib. rig pa]. In contrast, if the display is mistaken as 'other', then one is caught in ignorance [Skt. avidyā, Tib. ma rig pa]. The guru attempts to introduce the aspirant to their nature in direct introduction, and if successful then the practitioner recognizes his/her nature and then rests in that discerning knowledge [vidyā].

Yes, all of the myriad originations 'apparently' arise, but of course just as most every school of the dharma upholds, the true nature [dharmatā] of phenomena [dharmas] is emptiness free from extremes. The issue is, that sentient beings do not recognize this to be true, and so phenomena are grasped at as valid and substantial and suffering arises. The fact that there is no 'actual' cause and effect is a redundant point, it makes no difference. Dzogchen isn't concerned with the notion of what the 'actual' state of affairs is, dzogchen is concerned with recognition of that or non-recognition of that, and the respective implications of each. This also has nothing to do with a 'story', because the fact that the 'story' is a 'story' is nothing more than a story itself (if that isn't definitively recognized). The intellectual conclusion that phenomena are in truth unborn is of little merit, the point is to recognize one's nature, stabilize and integrate with that knowledge and then eventually liberation will dawn in one's condition. Delusion may indeed be a story, but it is much more compelling and deeply engrained than a simple story, sentient beings have become conditioned habitually to function under the heavy hand of delusion. Discovering one's nature and integrating with that wisdom is a process of dispelling those delusional proclivities, so that the underlying nature can shine in it's fullness.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 9th, 2013 at 5:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
Holybla said:
People say cause and effect, cause and effect, and it sounds scientific. But Buddha meant something completely different. He's saying, we are self-generating this whole dream. Not that it comes from somewhere.

krodha wrote:
Right but that is precisely the cause and effect: because of our ignorance (cause), all the myriad originations apparently arise and are attributed validity (effect).

as Nagarjuna states:
"When the perfect vidyā sees,
That things come from ignorance as condition,
Nothing will then be objectified,
Either in terms of arising or destruction."


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 9th, 2013 at 2:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
krodha wrote:
This seems to be a common issue that arises with some practitioners. They'll read a few texts authored by great adepts who are expounding the ultimate view from the standpoint of the highest wisdom and translate it as addressing their relative condition. Whereby they'll decide that there's nothing to do and will toss out the baby with the bath water. It happens all too often nowadays it seems, there are even some individuals who claim to be teachers who fall victim to this trend. This is why it's very important to have a strong relationship with a qualified teacher, and not rely on books alone. Dzogchen does speak of effortlessness, and the 'do nothing' approach, however these notions are describing one's practice once a certain level of familiarity and integration has occurred in the natural state. Effort is required until effortlessness takes over. Integration is a process of untangling oneself from the habitual tendencies which maintain ignorance, if we 'do nothing' too early in our path, we're simply doing nothing.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 9th, 2013 at 2:40 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, karma and ultimate truth
Content:
oushi said:
CrawfordHollow,

"Now, the ati-yogin of essence,
forsakes all provisional techniques
designed for straight cause and effect babes
on the lesser, ladder path,
and binds the gnostic dynamic
that supersedes all clever technique
to the yoke of the nonactive sky. - Lonchenpa"

When it comes to you long post... Fight the illusory dragon you are trying to create on your own.

krodha wrote:
You're quoting Longchenpa who is speaking from the viewpoint of the highest wisdom, fully awakened buddhahood, not our relative state.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 4th, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Unknown said:
Hello, oldbob 007!!!!    
   

About the list of the secondary practices now. Are the practices of Tregchöd, Togal and Yangti considered as secondary? 
I like the new idea that you present today.

krodha wrote:
Referencing the base, path and result trichotomy, I've seen Malcolm refer to Tregchö as equivalent to the base, Thögal as the path, and result being one of the few forms of death. So I'd say they're a little more integral to the teaching than the other secondary practices, depends on the individual though I'm sure.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 4th, 2013 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The fine information posted above was a collective effort provided by the fine minds of both sönam and Mutsuk Marro from vajracakra, much obliged! I do not own the rights to this information and would like to thank both cut and paste for the integral roles they played in making the precise transfer of this information possible. May it benefit countless beings!



Dronma said:
The information was originally posted in the Retreat Calendar of the Tsegyalgar West:  
https://tsegyalgarwest.org/retreat-center/retreats-calendar/

krodha wrote:
The plot thickens!


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 3rd, 2013 at 12:10 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Closed Webcast.

The schedule of retreat in Hotel Buena Vista is:
8th -12th May 2013
Tsegyalgar West retreat.
The teaching will be Zhinang Yeshes
Dronme (Tib. g.zhi-snang ye-shes sgron-me)
The Wisdom light of the Base.
Closed webcast.

The Lama Yangtik is made up of small inner trilogies. The Lamp of Wisdom (explaining) the Manifestations of the Base (gZhi snang ye shes sgron me) belongs to the first trilogy of the 2nd volume of the Lama Yangtik, known as the Trilogy of the Lamps (sGron me gsum) and it goes together with: (i) the Lamp Clarifying the meaning of Allegoric Examples (dPe don gsal byed sgron me) and (ii) the Lamp of the key-points of Practice (Nyams len gnad kyi sgron me).

The Lamp of Wisdom describes :
1. the primordial Base
2. the actual manifestations of the Base
3. the way they subside
4. the way they arise again after subsiding
5. the way they liberate after having arisen.

Pero said:
Don't you think it would be polite to attribute that to the person who wrote it?


krodha wrote:
The fine information posted above was a collective effort provided by the fine minds of both sönam and Mutsuk Marro from vajracakra, much obliged! I do not own the rights to this information and would like to thank both cut and paste for the integral roles they played in making the precise transfer of this information possible. May it benefit countless beings!


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 2nd, 2013 at 1:14 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
Closed Webcast.

The schedule of retreat in Hotel Buena Vista is:
8th -12th May 2013
Tsegyalgar West retreat.
The teaching will be Zhinang Yeshes
Dronme (Tib. g.zhi-snang ye-shes sgron-me)
The Wisdom light of the Base.
Closed webcast.

The Lama Yangtik is made up of small inner trilogies. The Lamp of Wisdom (explaining) the Manifestations of the Base (gZhi snang ye shes sgron me) belongs to the first trilogy of the 2nd volume of the Lama Yangtik, known as the Trilogy of the Lamps (sGron me gsum) and it goes together with: (i) the Lamp Clarifying the meaning of Allegoric Examples (dPe don gsal byed sgron me) and (ii) the Lamp of the key-points of Practice (Nyams len gnad kyi sgron me).

The Lamp of Wisdom describes :
1. the primordial Base
2. the actual manifestations of the Base
3. the way they subside
4. the way they arise again after subsiding
5. the way they liberate after having arisen.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 22nd, 2013 at 7:33 AM
Title: Re: Rigpa, mind, and the "world out there"
Content:
CrawfordHollow said:
I think that one of my problems trying to understand this (besides the fact that you really can't understand this conceptually) is that I was viewing mind and apperances at face value, not as dependently arisen empty appearances.  I also took for granted that duality is something that arises out of ignorance.  I have been practicing for a good amount of time- ten plus years- so you would think that I would have a better grasp on these ideas.  Either way, I am glad that I brought it up because I feel like I at least have a better concpetual understanding of the view, which I believe can strengthen the fortress of the real view- to a point.

Thank you all for helping me
Troy

krodha wrote:
Better conceptual understanding (although inequivalent to the authentic view) is one type (or aspect) of rigpa, as Jean-Luc Achard shares: "bSam-rig [Knowing Discernment] which is the knowledge you generate when you study and get experiences of the teachings (it is a fluctuating phenomenon according to the capacities of the individual; the more you study correctly, the more you Knowing Discernement is developed)".

The other two he mentions in addition to (i) bSam-rig, are (ii) Khyab-rig [All-Pervasive Discernment] which is the same as Tathāgatagarbha or the potentiality for Buddhahood which is innate to every being, and (iii) Ye-rig [Primordial Discernment], which is the rigpa implemented as the view [tawa] that is the foundation for one's practice in dzogchen.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 21st, 2013 at 3:24 AM
Title: Re: Question on a line from a Tibetan passage regarding Tant
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
...metaphor for all origins, large and small, up to and including the "ultimate" origin: the ground of being, (gzhi).

asunthatneversets said:
Off topic (and not to nitpick ha) but, since the four extremes arise out of grasping and ignorance, technically the ālaya (kun gzhi) is the 'ground of being' (and the ground of the other 3 extremes as well). The basis (gzhi) is free from extremes. Just seems like notions of being (and origination in general) are symptoms of ignorance... when fully integrated with the basis (gzhi) one is free of ignorance and therefore 'reality' is known to be unborn and non-arising.

gad rgyangs said:
I stated what Tibetan term I am meaning by "ground of being". You may prefer to translate it differently, but thats why its good to give the Tibetan, so there is no confusion about what is being referred to.
like notions of being (and origination in general) are symptoms of ignorance
the presence of the here and now is undeniable. I call that being, you can call it whatever you want.

krodha wrote:
True! Valid points. As long as the Tibetan term is there it doesn't matter, I agree with that... To each their own

I miss the old gad rgyangs - Malcolm discussions btw... They were so good


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 20th, 2013 at 3:55 PM
Title: Re: Rigpa, mind, and the "world out there"
Content:
CrawfordHollow said:
Thanks for the replies!

This gives me some stuff to chew on, although I am not sure how closer I am getting to understanding.  Another distintion that I find confusing is the distintion that Longchenpa makes between the objects of the mind and appearances.  He says something like appearances are basically emanations of the mind while objects are not, which make it sound like there is something "out there," even if that something is just a dependantly arisen appearance.  I guess the problem I am haveing is trying to understand this from the point of view of subject/object, when clearly this view transends all reality.  I guess this means just more cushion time.  The problem I have is that a lot of these questions come up when I am away from my teachers.  Thanks for your help, I will keep trying to wrap my head around this stuff.

krodha wrote:
The intellect can definitely become a distraction, but as long as you're mindful of that it's ok to intellectualize some, just don't mistake an intellectual understanding for true wisdom experience and you're good to go. I'm not a teacher and am not trying to present myself as one, so definitely take up any questions you have with a qualified teacher... but here's a bunch of intellectual stuff in the meantime:

About the "He says something like appearances are basically emanations of the mind while objects are not", I usually look at that the other way around, objects and conditioned phenomena (meaning; phenomena which appear to accord with any of the 4 extremes) are emanations of deluded mind (i.e. avidyā). While in contrast, the term 'appearance' can be reserved for the display of primordial wisdom.

The reason objects can be considered emanations of deluded mind is because 'objects' are byproducts of projected conventional dissimulation (i.e. imputation) mistaken to be inherently real. In dzogchen, objects only arise due to non-recognition of one's nature, meaning they appear to originate from ignorance (skt. avidyā, tib. ma rig pa). The idea that phenomena only arise as a result of our habitual tendencies (of grasping and clinging) is a very important aspect of the buddhadharma which separates it from the nondual trika and tīrthika traditions.

Non-recognition of the basis (Skt. sthāna, Tib. gzhi) essentially means that the basis' appearance (the five lights) are not recognized to be self-display. So the basis' own radiance is unrecognized and is therefore apprehended as 'other'. That error causes the illusion of subjectve/objective phenomena to arise and through the habitual reification of afflictive patterning such as imputation, the unborn display of the basis is then adulterated, becoming the aggregates (skandhas) which serve to form the illusion of a sentient being and it's respective environment. This process is represented quite well by the 12 Nidānas (specific theory of dependent origination), but the general theory of dependent origination is also helpful, which is; "where this exists, that exists, with the arising of that, this arose". Due to grasping at phenomena as 'other', 'self' is automatically implied, with the arising of the former, the latter originates by default. This also means the absence of one implies the absence of the other, so if you follow that line of reasoning you can start to see how extremes and dualities are rendered null and void.

In the dzogchen model, the third ignorance (imputing ignorance) sets the 12 Nidānas into motion and creates a basis for the proliferation of habitual tendencies called the all-basis (Skt. ālaya, Tib. kun gzhi). The ālaya acts as a reservoir in a sense, collecting imprints and serving as a substratum for all the myriad forms of designations and actions which are mistaken as inherent aspects of experience.

The Reverberation of Sound Tantra explains the etymology of 'all-basis':
"The etymology of 'kun' (all) lies in it's subsuming everything.
The etymology of 'gzhi' (basis) lies in it's accumulation and hoarding (of karmic traces and propensities)."

The Reverberation of Sound states:
"Here I will explain the all-basis to start off:
It is the ground of all phenomena and non-phenomena."

So the ālaya acts as the basis-of-all, meaning that it is the foundation for conditioned phenomena (phenomena which seemingly accord with any of the four extremes, which includes non-phenomena, both and neither) and the afflictive habitual patterning which sustains ignorance. For Dzogchen the ālaya is considered to be the 'ground-of-being', which is only ever one's own ignorance.

The Tantra of the Self-Arisen Vidyā states:
"The all-basis (Skt. ālaya, Tib. kun gzhi) is adulterated by diverse cognitive processes
By force of it's sustaining neurotic conceptuality;
The all-basis is the real ignorance (Skt. avidyā, Tib. ma rig pa)."

The processes of ignorance are undone via recognition of (and integration with) one's nature. In dzogchen, phenomena are viewed as empty from the very beginning, however when a certain level of integration has occurred, emptiness is directly realized, which means that phenomena which were previously attributed inherency and self-nature (svabhāva), are recognized to be empty and non-arisen.

Just as when you mistakenly view a rope to be a snake; the snake is a misconception, it's delusion, ignorance. Recognize the snake for what it is (a rope) and the snake falls, the snake is understood to have always been delusion, therefore the snake is non-arisen. Likewise, the aggregates are a misconception, delusion, ignorance. Recognize the aggregates for what they are (self-display of primordial wisdom) and the aggregates fall. The aggregates are understood to have always been delusion, therefore the aggregates are empty and non-arisen.

Dzogchen speaks of the 'full measure of vidyā' being the realization of emptiness. The 'full measure' or 'full effulgence' signifies an absence of contamination i.e. the direct realization of emptiness. In one's practice, vidyā increases by way of a decrease in the power that karmic and habitual propensities have over experience. So integration with vidyā is nothing more than resting in vidyā so that those propensities which once dominated experience exhaust themselves.

"The essence of the Buddha's teaching is the method on how to let confusion dawn as wisdom. The most vital point here is the introduction to and recognition of the buddha nature, the innate wisdom of dharmakāya that is already present within oneself. This fourth Dharma is a teaching on how to recognize, train in, and stabilize this recognition of the buddha nature. Understanding it is called the view, practicing it is called samadhi, and stabilizing it is called buddhahood."
- Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche

"Ordinary beings are truly buddhas,
but this fact is obscured by adventitious distortions
once these are removed, truly there is buddhahood."
- Hevajra Tantraraja Nāma

Emptiness in dzogchen is signified with the dharmakāya, which is only evident once one's condition has been divested of obscuring propensities. When direct experience appears like a reflection, meaning it is apparent yet explicitly known to be unreal, baseless, unfounded etc., that is dharmakāya.

The iconic metaphor which most adepts implement is very suiting; the objects of experience appear like a reflection of the moon in a pool of water: valid in that they are an appearance, just as the image of the moon upon the water is a valid image. Yet, just as one needs no convincing that the moon in the water is not the moon, when dharmakāya dawns it's known beyond any shred of doubt that all the constituent objects and qualities of 'reality' have never once been established or unestablished in any way... The empty appearances of experience do not create anything within or beyond their empty appearance. The experience must be akin to waking up from a dream if it's a valid knowledge of dharmakāya, it's a compelling and overwhelming epiphany that there's never been anything there at all... and yet, appearances. The empty display of primordial wisdom:

"There is no object to investigate within the view of self-originated wisdom: nothing went before, nothing happens later, nothing is present now at all. Action does not exist. Traces do not exist. Ignorance does not exist. Mind does not exist. Discriminating wisdom does not exist. Samsara does not exist. Nirvana does not exist. Even vidyā itself does not exist i.e. nothing at all appears in wisdom. That arose from not grasping anything."
- from The Unwritten Tantra [per Malcolm La]

"The arisings of paratantra (conventionality) are essenceless, since, their arising is not established from any of the four extremes: They do not arise from themselves, because for these arising and an instant in which they arise are contradictory. They do not arise from something else, since if the essential marks of these others are analyzed, they are not established. That they arise from both would be doubly contradictory, so that is not established. They do not arise without a cause, as that is impossible. The mere arising of whatever appears, mere interdependent arising like dream or illusion, is appearance of what does not exist."
- Mahāyānasūtrālamkāra


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 19th, 2013 at 1:53 AM
Title: Re: Rigpa, mind, and the "world out there"
Content:
CrawfordHollow said:
Hi guys,

I am going to try to take another shot at tackling this subject.  I brought this up at another forum and besides for a few helpful answers the conversation did not go all that well.  I will try to present myself more clearly.

I am confused on the relationship between, mind, rigpa, and appearances, and what consequences this relationship would have to what we consider the "world out there."

Longchenpa says:

The various appearances do not exist in reality as they are percepts (appearances) of the mind and are non-dual (in relation to the mind).  The essence of the mind is Mind, which is clarity, and it is self-arisen primordial wisdom.  Nowadays, foolish people say: "Dzogpa Chenpo awwerts that the appearances are mind."  That is totally wrong...  So one should know that the appearnances are the mysteries of the percepts of the mind and they are non-existent in reality like reflections in a mirror.  They appear in the mind in the manner of delusions due to habituations.
-The Practice of Dzogchen

Here is John Myrdhin Reynolds from The Golden Letters:

Appearances represent the play of creative energy or inexhaustible potentiality of Awareness (rigpa).  They are not "mind" as in the Chittamartin view, but rather they are manifestations of mind, something constructed by mind out of the raw material of sense data...  Whatever may arise, appearing as external phenomena to the individual, is merely one's own internal state of existence manifesting externally, that is to say, it is merely the potentiality or creative energy of Awareness (rigpa) becoming visible to the individual.  Apart from this organized system of phenomena, nothing exists in reality...The manifestation of phenomena is a projection of the energy of the mind, a phantom show projected into space...  It is not something independant of the mind, but on the other hand, neither is it just made up of the mind in the sense of a solipsistic fantasy.

So, I understand that what is being rejected in the Mind-Only position, and what is being posited is that appearances are the dependantly arisen by-products of delusion, but I still fail to see how appearances cannot be mind, but are still just manifestations of rigpa, or awareness.  I understand there is a difference between the samsaric, dualistic mind and rigpa, but I think that something has just not clicked yet for me.  And to complicate things, I am wondering how this doesn't becomce a "solipsistic fantasy," how are the appearnces somehow "out there" while at the same time being just projections of what is "in here."

Thank you, I hope I was clear in presenting that.

Troy

krodha wrote:
The lack of 'mind' is simply seeing that the notion of 'mind' is imputed onto the experience, one way this recognition can come about is by actively searching for the mind, seeking it's location, where it's positioned, what it's shape is, it's color etc. The idea is to investigate your experience and the mind so you can gain direct experiential confidence and certainty in it's nature. Another way this is done is through investigating thought, where it arises, abides and where it goes to when it ceases. There are logical ways to explain the nature of mind, however the direct experiential recognition is of course the most beneficial (and of course direct introduction - rigpai tselwang - from a qualified teacher is mandatory and indispensable if one is to authentically practice dzogchen).

Also, it's not that appearances are vidyā (rigpa), what appearances are is the display of primordial wisdom, though this isn't recognized and therefore sentient beings are confused by their own ignorance (skt. avidyā, tib. ma rig pa). When appearances are recognized to be 'self-display', the discerning knowledge which results from that recognition is called vidyā/ripga. Awareness isn't really a good translation of vidyā, it's a very common translation but more and more translators/teachers are beginning to abandon 'awareness' as a suitable representation of vidyā. 'Awareness' has the potential to suggest the simple neutral registering cognizance of mind, and vidyā is the knowledge of one's nature which becomes the working foundation for one's practice in dzogchen. Quite different than 'awareness'.

This doesn't become a solipsistic fantasy, because solipsism requires a mind, which would be a singular point of reference. It's not as if there is a 'source' but if you must view a source, see appearances as self-sourcing... though in truth appearances are neither established nor unestablished (free from the four extremes). The 'world out there' is an abstraction, it's conventionally true (even though dzogchen doesn't uphold the two truths but instead sees the conventional as equivalent with avidyā), however in dzogchen there is no inner-outer dichotomy, subjective and objective phenomena are conventional and contextual pointers if they are implemented in dzogchen, they are not real.


"In it (Dzogpa Chenpo) the essence (ngo-bo) of vidyā, the realization of the non-existence of the apprehended and apprehender, is called spontaneously arisen primordial wisdom. But Dzogpa Chenpo doesn't assert it as self-awareness and self-clarity (rang-rig rang-gsal) as Yogācāra, the Mind Only School, does. Because (according to Dzogpa Chenpo), as there is no existence of internal and external, it (vidyā) is not established as internal mind. As there is no self and others, it isn't established as self-awareness. As the apprehended and apprehender have never existed, freedom from the two is not established. As it is not an object of experiences and awareness, the experience is not established as non-dual. 

As there is no mind and mental events, it does not exist as self-mind. As it does not exist as clarity or non-clarity, it is not established as self-clarity. As it transcends awareness and non-awareness, there are not even the imputations of awareness. This is called the Dzogpa Chenpo, free from extremes. Although it is designated as self-arisen primordial wisdom, enlightened mind, ultimate body, the great spontaneously accomplished ultimate sphere, and the naked self-clarity vidyā, these ascriptions are merely in order to signify it. It should be realized that the self-essence (of Dzogpa Chenpo) is inexpressible. Otherwise, if you take the meaning of the words literally, you will never find (in Dzogpa Chenpo) any difference from the cognition of self-awareness, self-clarity, and non-duality of apprehender and apprehended of the Mind Only School."
- Longchen Rabjam


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 19th, 2013 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: Rigpa, mind, and the "world out there"
Content:
krodha wrote:
Referencing these:

"'Designating appearances as the dharmakāya obscures me,
designating whatever appears as mind obscures me,
designating wisdom as mind obscures me'
- The Mind Mirror of Samantabhadra Tantra

To expand on this, nowadays common fools say, 'Appearances are your own mind! Appearances are the dharmakāya! Wisdom (ye shes) is our mind!' Really there's no difference between such people and the insane who say whatever pops into their mind: 'The head is the ass!' 'Fire is water!' 'Darkness is light!' Thus I consider these people ignorant, since they are even more conceited than such madmen. If appearances are our mind, then it follows that our mind has colors and so forth. It would entail that even when you are absent, your mind would exist in the area where you previously were, since the appearances there continue to exist (despite your leaving). Furthermore, it would entail that through one thing being born, everything is born; and through one thing dying, everything dies. When ten million people see a vase, it would entail that the entire vase is (part and parcel of each person's own particular) mind, and just so, all those individuals would be of a single mind. Since all phenomena appear in the scope of a Buddha's 'enlightened knowing of things in all their plurality', it would entail that cyclic existence is the Buddha's wisdom (ye shes). When a sentient being sees a Buddha, it would necessarily follow that this Buddha is distorted, since s/he is the sentient being's mind. Additionally it would entail that this sentient being is a Buddha, since the Buddha is the sentient being's mind. This position would also entail that these appearances could become totally adrift in a single instant, just as in a single instant our mind's movements drift here and there. Thus these and many other absurdities are entailed (by identifying appearances with the mind).

If appearances are the dharmakāya, then it would entail that appearances are beyond appearance and non-appearance, since the dharmakāya is beyond appearance and non-appearance. It would follow that the dharmakāya would be a distorted appearance, and that it would be apprehensible in terms of a substantial thing and its concrete qualities, since these appearances are distorted appearances apprehended in terms of substantial qualities. Alternatively, it would follow that it would be impossible for these appearances to appear to (ordinary beings') distorted perspective, since the dharmakāya is the ultimate reality and, as such, can never appear to a distorted perspective."
- David Germano

-------------------

I'm not sure about the 'everything arising from rigpa' but Tsoknyi Rinpoche's comments regarding rigpa completely pervading all things, and by understanding rigpa you understand all phenomena... are pointing to the fact that once recognition of one's nature has occurred, the delusion that apperceives phenomena as objectively arising qualities of experience which appear to a mind, is overcome. So that is to say, the recognition of rigpa is essentially the very first time one's experience is known accurately, and that knowledge is then the foundation for one's practice in dzogchen.

It's not only the refutation that appearances are the samsaric dualistic mind, but the very idea that appearances and phenomena are subsumed into the mind or consciousness. It's the notion that the objective phenomena are non-dual with a subjective mind or consciousness, and that there is a union of those polarities. The Dzogchen view is that both the mind/consciousness and the objective appearances are byproducts of delusion, just as Longchenpa says in the quote above; "Likewise, various kinds of phenomena are appearing in the deluded mind because of the interdependent origination of the causes and conditions of delusion." The mind/consciousness and phenomena viewed as objective, separate or subsumed within that mind are both products of delusion, grasping and clinging, imputation and conceptualization etc. The moment a mind or consciousness is posited, that which is not-that-mind arises, that is the dependent origination. The idea is to see that the mind/consciousness and the phenomena are dependently originated and therefore both are rendered empty if that is ascertained successfully.

Also, nothing truly arises from the basis (gzhi), the basis simply displays it's appearance as the five lights, but since that spontaneously and naturally formed display (lhun grub) is primordially pure (ka dag) it's not established (nor unestablished) in any way. Only when that display isn't recognized to be self-display, does phenomena arise. The basis is never involved in delusion in any way nor does it display delusion, delusion arises due to non-recognition. The recognition of rigpa is simply the knowledge or discernment which results from ascertaining the display of the basis to be self-display.

The Mahāmudrā instructions which say 'everything is mind' is usually a line of reasoning which runs like so: 'everything is mind, mind is empty' so it's a way of helping the aspirant to achieve recognition (if recognition didn't occur in direct introduction). Everything is the mind deems everything as nondual with the mind, and then the mind is empty i.e. insubstantial, unfindable, unestablished. It's just a way to say that which you perceive as 'objective phenomena' is truly neither the same nor different than the mind, both are imputed designations. Since dzogchen is resting in rigpa, the nature of the mind has already been recognized and so it's emptiness is implicit in the view to begin with.

-------------------

Troy in case the dependent origination part of that isn't clear, here Nāgārjuna refutes a consciousness-only or mind-only view in his Bodhicittavivaraṇa (the Prasanga Madhyamaka view accords with Dzogchen when exploring these aspects of delusion):

For those who propound consciousness [only]
This manifold world is established as mind [only]
What might be the nature of that consciousness?
I shall now explain this very point.

"All of this is but one's mind,"
That which was stated by the Able One
Is to alleviate the fear of the childish;
It is not [a statement] of [final] truth.

The imputed, the depenent,
And the consummate - they have
Only one nature of their own, emptiness;
Their identities are constructed upon the mind.

To those who delight in the great vehicle
The Buddha taught in brief
Selflessness is perfect equanimity;
And that the mind is primordially unborn.

The proponents of yogic practices assert
That the purified mind [effected] through
Mastery of one's own mind
And through utter revolution of its state
Is the sphere of it's own reflexive awareness.

That which is past is no more;
That which is yet to be is not obtained;
As it abides its locus is utterly transformed,
So how can there be [such awareness in] the present?

Whatever it is it's not what it appears as;
Whatever it appears as it is not so;
Consciousness is devoid of selfhood;
[Yet] consciousness has no other basis.

By being close to a loadstone
An iron object swiftly moves forward;
It possesses no mind [of its own], 
Yet it appears as if it does.

Likewise the foundational consciousness too
Appears to be real though it is false;
In this way it moves to and fro
And retains [the three realms of] existence.

Just as the ocean and the trees
Move about though they posses no mind;
Likewise foundational consciousness too
Move about in dependence upon the body.

So if it is considered that
Without a body there is no consciousness,
You must explain what it is this awareness
That is the object of one's own specific knowledge.

By calling it specific awareness itself,
You are asserting it to be an entity;
Yet by stating that "it is this,"
You are asserting it also to be powerless.

Having ascertained oneself
And to help others ascertain,
The learned proceeds excellently
Always without error.

The cognizer perceives the cognizable;
Without the cognizable there is no cognition;
Therefore why do you not admit
That neither object nor subject exists [at all]?

The mind is but a mere name;
Apart from its name it exists as nothing;
So view consciousness as a mere name;
Name too has no intrinsic nature.

Either within or likewise without,
Or somewhere in between the two,
The conquerors have never found the mind;
So the mind has the nature of an illusion. 

The distinctions of colors and shapes,
Or that of object and subject,
Of male, female and the neuter - 
The mind has no such fixed forms.

In brief the Buddhas have never seeen
Nor will they ever see [such a mind];
So how can they see it as intrinsic nature
That which is devoid of intrinsic nature?

"Entity" is a conceptualization;
Absence of conceptualization is emptiness;
Where conceptualization occurs,
How can there be emptiness? 

The mind in terms of the perceived and perceiver,
This the Tathagatas have never seen;
Where there is the perceived and perceiver, 
There is no enlightenment.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 19th, 2013 at 1:02 AM
Title: Re: Rigpa, mind, and the "world out there"
Content:
krodha wrote:
Which part is the most confusing? [EDIT: Nevermind you stated above what's confusing]


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 at 2:41 PM
Title: Re: For the Boston Marathon victims
Content:
greentara said:
Yes, the Boston Marathon bombing is shocking yet we often disregard what happens in the third word and concentrate on the  USA and first world instead.

krodha wrote:
So true, was one of my first thoughts in seeing the outpouring of concern and press the Boston bombings are receiving, the fact that it occurred in the U.S. truly seems to invoke a passionate response from people, but when the same or worse happens on a regular basis in other countries it doesn't seem to be a big deal. Very strange.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 at 1:15 PM
Title: Re: Question on a line from a Tibetan passage regarding Tant
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
...metaphor for all origins, large and small, up to and including the "ultimate" origin: the ground of being, (gzhi).

krodha wrote:
Off topic (and not to nitpick ha) but, since the four extremes arise out of grasping and ignorance, technically the ālaya (kun gzhi) is the 'ground of being' (and the ground of the other 3 extremes as well). The basis (gzhi) is free from extremes. Just seems like notions of being (and origination in general) are symptoms of ignorance... when fully integrated with the basis (gzhi) one is free of ignorance and therefore 'reality' is known to be unborn and non-arising.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 13th, 2013 at 12:31 PM
Title: Re: Where to go in San Francisco for "Pointing Out" instr?
Content:
catlady2112 said:
I have been studying and practicing Thrangu Rinpoche's mahamudra teachings for several years on my own and I would like to receive a pointing out instruction somewhere locally in the bay area by a qualified teacher.  I don't know what center offers these teachings/transmission locally.  Any suggestions?
Thanks!

krodha wrote:
Drubpon Rinpoche (Drikung Kagyu) in SF. Not sure what his center is called, I'll find out, he's highly recommended! I'm trying to meet him soon I think he's been out of the country temporarily.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 9th, 2013 at 6:40 AM
Title: Re: Where do thoughts come from?
Content:
Mikeliegler said:
Hello I am new to all this and wonder if anyone can tell me where thoughts come from. I have seen some answers that say they originate from our clinging.

Malcolm said:
As we have seen, for Dzogchen it is because the differentiation between mind and vāyu is merely nominal (different names for the same thing in a body), and thus, all sentient beings must have a physical body, even if it is very subtle, including formless realm beings. Vāyu of course is the name of the air element, and means that. Vāyu, air (Tibetan: rlung) is given the name "prāṇa" (Tibetan: srog) soley because it gives life. Further, each of the five elements contains the potentiality of the other four elements within it.
...In Dzogchen on the other hand, mind is held to be generated by the vāyus in the body. In the Khandro Nyinthig Padmasambhava declares that mind and vāyu are just different names for the same thing:

"...the energy of that vivid luminosity arising as the diversity, that is called “vāyu”, and it is called “mind”. Though luminosity is called mind, because of movement, it is called “vāyu”"

Mind, such as it is can be considered the subtle aspect of vāyu. But in reality, vāyu, the air element functioning in the human body, is what we call mind.

N
The mind ultimately comes from the ignorance of non-recognition. The ignorance of non-recognition itself is predicated on a dispensible or relative latent awareness that exists at the time of the basis in the basis and is a function of the movement of vāyu or rlung in the basis, the movement that is responsible for the arising of the basis from the basis. When the display of the basis is recognized as being ones own display, that latent awareness becomes prajñā, when it does not, it becomes avidyā.
...In a real sense, however there is neither mind no matter. Mind and matter are equally produced through non-recognition of the basis i.e. essence, nature and energy.

N


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 24th, 2013 at 2:11 PM
Title: Re: Iconic Phrase 'SHORT MOMENTS, MANY TIMES' Copyrighted?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
So will I get sued? That was why I repeated the phrase. It will be interesting to see if they go after a teacher who uses the phrase in a written work. I don't know who 'she' is, so I can't work out her motivation. Any ideas as to who?

krodha wrote:
Candace O'Denver would be my guess.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 24th, 2013 at 1:41 PM
Title: Re: Iconic Phrase 'SHORT MOMENTS, MANY TIMES' Copyrighted?
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I think that when you are meditating on the true nature then it is important to meditate short moments, many times. This is especially important in the Dzogchen and Mahamudra traditions.

krodha wrote:
Yes of course. Apparently the nameless individual discussed above has took it upon herself to legally copyright 'short moments, many times' though... quite ridiculous IMO.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 24th, 2013 at 12:38 PM
Title: Iconic Phrase 'SHORT MOMENTS, MANY TIMES' Copyrighted?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Saw this posted elsewhere (not my writing):

"~ SHORT MOMENTS, REPEATED MANY TIMES ~

(It's now Private Property ! - so don't repeat it, you may be in breach of copyright law!)

This fundamental instruction for gaining confidence in awareness has traditionally been communicated by teachers of the Tibetan Dzogchen and Mahamudra Lineages, as part of their ancient cultural heritage.

One of the many Lamas to have done so in recent years, is Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, whose books 'AS IT IS' clearly, frequently and openly share this important instruction, and the context which is essential for complete understanding and application of this method for realization of Awareness.

'The practice, as I state over and over again,
is SHORT MOMENTS REPEATED MANY TIMES'
(citation from Tulku Urgyen's 'As It Is'
v2. p145, published 2000).

Multiple variations of this term 'SHORT MOMENTS REPEATED MANY TIMES' are used literally hundreds of times in these two volumes of 'As It Is' alone, and also have been used extensively in the Dzogchen and Mahamudra traditions for hundreds of years.

In fact for centuries the term 'SHORT MOMENTS MANY TIMES' has been utilised, preserved and passed on by many Tibetan Wisdom masters of the Mahamudra and Dzogchen Lineages, and in the west it has been widely available to English readers for several decades, in the published works of Tibetans wisdom teachers such as Tulku Urgyen, Chokyi Nyima, Tsoknyi Rinpoche, and others.

This very precious traditional instruction, that is an essential part of the freely given wisdom inheritance of the human race, was never once 'possessed', nor were the legal rights to it's use 'owned', by any single individual or organization, as if it could be their own personal 'intellectual property' (legally enforceable under copyright law). And for the good ethical reason that to do so would have been a flagrant violation of the very spirit of the Bodhisattva tradition of compassionate wisdom activity in which that particular practice, and the terms used to describe it, were used.

The very important point i'm emphasizing here is that no phrase as central to the tradition of Dzogchen as is 'Short Moments Repeated Many Times', could ever possibly be 'legally owned' as the 'intellectual property' of any individual, or business corporation.

Even to suggest so, seems to me to be not at all credible.
And yet, incredibly, now it actually is so.

As of last year the traditional term, already widely used and previously published in easily available english language books of Tibetan Dzogchen teachings, has been seized for exclusive, and legally enforceable use, by a self-appointed American teacher of a form of hybrid Tibetan/techno-futurist self-improvement.

So now we find, in september 2010, after countless years of the term and practice 'Short Moments Many Times…' being freely available to all (altho encountered by relatively few), this one particular individual was able to seize legal control over the use of this term by buying the trademark, claiming that it was her own invention.

As bizarre as it seems, that individual now seeks to claim, as her own legally enforceable exclusive 'intellectual property', the term already used by others, and in circulation in the public domain for decades before her attempt at 'spiritual piracy' was perpetrated.

Perhaps this was just an innocent mistake made by a clever but naive individual who, believing herself infallible due to her 'brilliant unerring clarity', foolishly mistook a term, which she knew to be a traditional Dzogchen wisdom instruction, to be an item of personally obtainable intellectual property that she would seize for her own exclusive use. An understandable mistake, from some points of view, perhaps.

Whatever it is, she has succeeded in gaining the legal trademark of the term 'Short Moments Many Times' and its variants, and she and/or her business corporation will now be able to legally prevent others making any public use of the term or its variants, unless authorized by her or her organization. Using this trademark she is now legally empowered to threaten and suppress their public activities if they ever teach, or publish, the ancient traditional Dzogchen practice of 'Short Moments Many Times' (as Tulku Urgyen and many other Lamas have been doing for many years before she bought the term and removed it from the public domain.)

Of course it's not likely that she trademarked these terms to curtail the activities of authorized lineage masters in the Dzogchen tradition. That would be the height of hubris.

What then is her intent in trademarking these terms? When one reads the copyright statement that accompanies all her teachings and which students are required to sign, it would appear that she seeks to prevent anyone, beginning with her own students, from ever publicly 'competing with' her by disseminating anything 'similar to or competing with' whatever she considers to be 'her' teachings.

Her trademarking of part of a simple and profound wisdom instruction that has existed in the Tibetan Dzogchen tradition for hundreds of years, therefore, has to be understood as part of a calculated strategy to control the activities of her students, and others, now and into the foreseeable future.

It is most likely a criminal offense for anyone to trademark an item of 'intellectual property' as if it's their own invention, when in provable fact it was already in independent use by others in the public domain, prior to the trademark date. We'll have to look into this further.

Anyway, if you want to see for yourself, please check out the company 'Trademarken' for the Trademarks #85175572 "Short Moments"; #85175579 "Short Moments Many Times"; #85175602 "Short Moments of Awareness, Many Times, Become Automatic" #85175586 "Short Moments of Clarity, Many Times, Become Continuous" ; #85175592 "Short Moments of Clarity, Many Times, Become Automatic" .

I must say that to me this individuals act of seizing 'SHORT MOMENTS...' from the 'spiritual commons' for her own very exclusive business enterprise seems very much like an attempt at spiritual and cultural theft. I find it quite difficult to imagine what could possibly serve as a credible excuse for what seems like very unethical and underhanded behavior. And it's an orientation that appears to be at odds with the tradition of compassionate wisdom from which she is known to have lifted so much of her own supposedly original material.

In fact it's very obvious to anyone familiar with the writings of Longchenpa, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche, Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche, Tsoknyi Rinpoche, Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche, Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, and many other traditionally trained masters of Tibetan Dzogchen, that the supposedly 'original' early teachings of this person (or her 'products, concepts, systems and technologies' as she prefers to call them) are extensively derived from those earlier Tibetan authors and their traditional perspectives.

After discovering her many trademarks for the common variations of this term 'Short Moments..', which she has bought despite the provable fact that it has been, and still is, widely used in the Mahamudra/Dzogchen traditions, I wondered if she'd succeeded in trademarking any other traditional Buddhist terms or phrases.

In fact many additional terms and phrases, clearly originating in the Buddhist tradition, and published as such for very many years, have also been very frequently used by this particular individual (The 'trademarker' of the Tradition) as if they were unique inventions of her own. These include terms and phrases such as - 'short moments of awareness' , 'resting as awareness' , 'let everything be as it is' , 'the basic space' ,'natural perfection' , 'primordial purity', 'for the benefit of all', 'body, speech, mind, qualities and activities' and 'timelessly free'.

She has in fact begun that process of trademarking other traditional terms. Not only has she seized 'Short Moments Many Times', and several variants, as if they were her own inventions, and as if she had an ethical right to do so, but to my astonishment i found she has also already gained legal control over 'for the benefit of all' ! (Trademark #85175618)

Watch out you Buddhas and Bodhisattvas of the ten directions, you are all now in breach of her copyright, by using 'her intellectual property' !

Now I can't help ironically wondering if, as an ex-catholic, she would try to trademark 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' or 'Hail Mary, full of grace, . . . '. To do so would give her great leverage over much of Christendom.
However, unlike the Tibetans, those Vatican guys would have so many lawyers onto her she wouldn't know what hit her. And she'd find it impossibly costly to enforce.

But most Buddhists who realize the lack of inherent self-existence and let everything be as it is, don't manipulate their data-streams, and may appear as push-overs, so she's probably not worried."


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 8th, 2013 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: Curious about the posting-info's new position on the rig
Content:
krodha wrote:
Seems to be fixed now!


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 8th, 2013 at 6:32 AM
Title: Re: Some good literature for an introduction to Dzogchen?
Content:
M1NDFUL said:
Wow, what a coincidence. One of the teachers at the Center for Dzogchen Studies where I plan on attending is indeed Patrul Rinpoche. Thanks for the recommendation!

krodha wrote:
Different Patrul Rinpoche then, the Patrul Rinpoche who was an iconic key figure and prominent teacher of the Nyingma (mentioned above) passed in 1887. This is the Patrul Rinpoche who may be teaching at the center you're planning on attending: http://www.patrulrinpoche.org/


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 7th, 2013 at 12:30 PM
Title: Re: On the difficulty of recognizing the natural state
Content:
monktastic said:
...So I read lots of texts and tried to put them into practice. Sit, allow this reflexive awareness to unfold, and don't... touch... anything. It doesn't need "your" help; quite the contrary, in fact. With a little luck, and a lot of investigation, one day you may a glimpse of ordinary mind! At that point your practice may transition from regular, deluded shamatha, to shamatha-vipashyana -- real Mahamudra practice.

"Trouble" is, I didn't (and haven't) recognized anything new. Yes, grasping is less, kleshas are down, and I seem to fall less frequently into the extremes of meditation and distraction -- but it seems to be the same thought-free wakefulness sustaining itself at "my" core, just a little less obscured. And that's probably fine, because I don't feel I need anything more. That very idea doesn't make sense.

So I'm a little confused: is this the recognition that is considered very hard to come to on one's own? Any recognition, at all, of the self-aware presence that seems to underlie all of experience? If indeed it is, then perhaps I should feel thankful to have spontaneously recognized it on my own. Or maybe many recognize it, but few attach any importance to it?

My understanding is that this is what Tsoknyi Rinpoche refers to when he uses the term "baby rigpa." It's not the full-blown rigpa, but a nascent recognition that must be nurtured until it fully ripens. If what I have identified as mind essence is something else entirely, that would be surprising (but not impossible); it seems to be a matter of degree, and not kind.

The online http://www.mahamudracenter.org/MMCMemberMeditationGuide.htm draws this analogy:
At this stage, the flavor of this realization permeates the continuum of one’s being and it continues in daily activity just like the flavor of a spice permeates to all of a meal into which it is mixed. No additional contrivances are necessary.
And Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche has this to say:
In the beginning, when we start this training, the master will say, “Look into your mind! Look into your mind!” This watchfulness is necessary until you are used to it. Once that has happened you don’t need to look here or there. You have caught the ‘scent’ of the nature of mind. At that point, you do not need to struggle; the nature of mind is naturally awake.
Indeed, I believe that to be the scent I've been tracking down like a bloodhound all these years (and then relaxing into, once it was explained to me that efforting was the wrong idea ). And it surprises me that this is considered out of the reach of anyone passionately curious about the nature of their mind.

I'm not looking for anyone to confirm my recognition; obviously only my own guru (which I don't have right now) can do that. But I hope to get a little more clarity about what it is (any recognition? full recognition?) that is said to be hard or impossible to recognize without a guru. Because that idea, reinforced in many texts, was the primary cause of hope and fear in my practice. "You mean this might not be it? What else could it be? But they say it's really hard..."

Perhaps it can best be explained by them taking a "rather safe than sorry" approach -- safer to dissuade one person who has some recognition of mind from actually believing it, than to let 10 others believe they see it when they don't?

krodha wrote:
Rather than a 'self-aware presence that seems to underlie all of experience', the recognition you're looking for is that that very same 'self-aware presence' is precisely experience itself, inseparable from experience. The actual recognition will be a doubtless certainty to the degree that you won't require any confirmation about it (though it's good to confirm and talk about it with your teacher) You'll know that it's precisely what is being spoken of.

You're right that efforting is the wrong idea though... it is indeed uncontrived and naturally occurring, but mistaking it for the mere presence underlying experience is a common misconception. Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche calls the state you're currently familiar with 'stable shamatha' but to have the recognition you're looking for the leap to 'released shamatha' is necessary. Released shamatha reveals the union of stillness and movement. When stillness and movement are realized to be nondual then it no longer seems as if there is a presence which underlies experience, but it's recognized that the presence is empty while appearing as the myriad forms of experience. The presence is neither the same nor different than experience, the two are primordially nondual.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 7th, 2013 at 7:07 AM
Title: Curious about the posting-info's new position on the right
Content:
krodha wrote:
Getting used to the posting-info's (which lists the author of the post's username, number of posts etc.) new position on the right side of the page. Prior to the re-coloration the posting-info was positioned on the left - which seems to be more intuitive as far as aesthetics go when it comes to reading information on the web. I'm sure the counterintuitive feeling of the newfound positioning (on the right) stems from the fact that most cultures are very accustomed to reading left-to-right (not all of course). In most cases information is placed on the left, graphs being a prime example (most websites, blogs, forums being other examples) and dharma wheel itself still implements the positioning of information in a left-to-right schematic on it's main page and subsidiary thread menus... so I guess my question is (respectfully) what is the logic behind the positioning of the posting-info on the right (within the threads)? And does anyone else feel it's a bit counterintuitive? I'm only inquiring because I was curious if it has a certain purpose, or if it is merely an aesthetic change which was proposed when the rest of the remodeling was happening?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 6th, 2013 at 12:23 PM
Title: Re: Tulpas
Content:


sahaja said:
. I'm using rigpa here as direct, not as a link to, (a knowledge of base) Because with direct there is no seperation from, not one thing here linked to another there. Not 2 - non dualistic. Buddha.

Forgive my looseness in definition. Rigpa isn't the easiest thing to define or describe.

One of the first requirements in my sangha was the recognition of rigpa. Recognition of Buddha (being what you are) You'll hear of "being in rigpa" which i'm assuming is referring to it as a 'state', temporary usually. Because a permanent state would be a full Buddha, wouldn't it? Sans everything. Sans form, sans identity, sans body, sans consciousness, sans sensation and sans sans these things....I think i was about to do a version of the Prajna Paramita...Which is much better than i could ever do.

5 skandas/5 lights/5 adulterations(poisons) for the Buddhist side

krodha wrote:
It's knowledge of the basis (vidyā). Definitely not what you are. It is the basis for practice and so yes direct introduction is first and foremost. 'Being in rigpa' is resting in that knowledge.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 6th, 2013 at 9:03 AM
Title: Re: Tulpas
Content:
CrawfordHollow said:
Would it not be more accurate to say that we are more like a generated thought form rather than all we are is a generated thought form?

krodha wrote:
Guess that would depend on which aspect is being discussed but generally anything which apparently originates does so as a result of ignorance and clinging. 'Generated thought form' isn't a very good way to describe it but the origination of an apparent subject-object dichotomy is a result of imputation and it is sustained by habitual tendencies which result from imputing.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 6th, 2013 at 5:42 AM
Title: Re: Tulpas
Content:
krodha wrote:
Well my apologies for feeding the fire on this thread. Just for the record I'm in no way advocating for tulpa phenomena being a valid aspect of buddhism or dzogchen, and support whatever anyone wants to do with this thread


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 5th, 2013 at 5:34 PM
Title: Re: Tulpas
Content:
Kunzang said:
In the Dzogchen view, accomplished thoughtform of the kye rim mode are sentient beings as they have a consciousness field or mindstream confluence in a dynamic of entrainment-secession and organization-entropy of emergent factors or from the mindstream intentionality of progenitor(s).
What utter rubbish.  There is nothing at all like that in Dzogchen.

Like Dronma said, this doesn't belong in the Dzogchen forum.  It also doesn't belong in the Tibetan Buddhism forum either, because this is a Western occult practice with only a spurious connection to authentic Tibetan Buddhism.

Could one of the mods please move this to a more appropriate forum, like the lounge?

krodha wrote:
Yes well take that up with Vajranatha or the uninformed who post information to Wikipedia, I'm not sure which one wrote the passage you're objecting to but either way, I'm merely the messenger. The verbiage in the section you cited is indeed convoluted I do agree with that, but the info directly following which addresses the five lights is undoubtably relevant to dzogchen so it isn't all utter rubbish.

Also, as for dzogchen being nondual and that rendering these topics irrelevant, that isn't the case. The original tantras go very far out of their way to explore the nature of ignorance (and duality) and how it relates to the human body, the structuring of delusion etc. The fundamental ignorance which gives rise to the aberrations of the 12 nidanas is a process which isn't far off from the solidification of projection and imputation being discussed when it comes to tulpas etc.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 5th, 2013 at 11:18 AM
Title: Re: Tulpas
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
There's actually some websites ( http://tulpa.info/

Adamantine said:
Hey sun i'm not so sure about how reputable that site is, in the intro he already spells meditation incorrectly as "medication".

krodha wrote:
Oh yeah, don't get me wrong I wasn't implying that it was legitimate, it's been awhile since I read the site, but I recalled seeing different testimonials from different individuals (or different methods) posted in the guide section. I'm not saying that it's something anyone should actually involve themselves with haha, just posted the sites to show that it's a phenomena which has seeped into the western world a little bit.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 5th, 2013 at 10:22 AM
Title: Re: Tulpas
Content:
krodha wrote:
There's actually some websites ( http://tulpa.info/ | https://tulpaforce.tumblr.com/ ) out there with instructions for anyone who's interested in creating a tulpa to do so, but yeah the implications are pretty intense! Some of the instructions I saw have the individual start by visualizing an environment for the tulpa, and to construct that pretty in depth. Then once the environment is made they said to start visualizing the tulpa, but not to make it look like anyone you know. From there I guess you're supposed to spend pretty much as much free time as you can focusing on the visualization of the tulpa, and then at a certain point you're supposed to start speaking to it, just talking and carrying on a conversation. The verbal discussion and instructions mold how they will behave in the beginning. Then once that's done enough at some point you'll start to hear the tulpa speak back, and then you'll start to see the tulpa but no one else will be able to. I guess the tulpa will essentially just follow you around but as the experience increases others will start to be able to see the tulpa and the tulpa will start to have a mind of it's own and have it's own behavior. So you technically bring a sentient being into existence more or less. A few people said that the tulpas usually become somewhat emotionally unstable because they understand that they aren't 'like everyone else' etc. Supposedly the tulpa can't really be unmade or destroyed so it either is just around you all the time or will go off and do it's own thing. Pretty crazy stuff though, there was quite a few individuals on the site who wrote about their success in doing this.

If anything though the whole process just speaks to the accuracy of the five lights etc and how they become solidified as the five elements through adulteration.

Apparently this thing: 'The Slender Man' is supposed to be possibly tulpa-related ( http://theslenderman.wikia.com/wiki/Slender_Man ).

There was another story of an explorer who went to the himalayas in search of a master and apparently once he located the yogi, the yogi summoned a tulpa which approached the man and touched him on the forehead which immediately merged the guys mind with the yogi's and he said the vastness of the masters mind was beyond words.

-------------------

I posted this some time ago in the main Tibetan Buddhism board:



asunthatneversets said:
New film titled "The Apparition" which is out in theatres now is (loosely) based on Tulpa (thought-form) phenomena. Prior to filming, Warner Bros. hired paranormal investigator Joshua P. Warren to actually experiment with the notion and create a tulpa.

Summary of a radio show interview with Joshua:
"...paranormal investigator Joshua P. Warren finally revealed details about the groundbreaking experiment he was hired by Warner Brothers to conduct to 'create a ghost.' He was joined in the first hour by Todd Lincoln, writer/director of Warner Brothers' new horror movie, 'The Apparition'. Lincoln said his new film is inspired by experiments conducted in the 1970s by researchers who suggested that paranormal events happen because people believe in them. The group created a fictional back story for a man named Phillip and focused on manifesting him solely through the power of the mind, he explained. Strange things occurred which terrified the researchers and the experiment was halted, Lincoln added. In The Apparition a similar experiment summons an inhuman entity that gains its power from belief and fear, he noted.

Warren reported on his own attempt at creating a ghost using a lab setup, pointing out that "this actually worked." Components of the original Phillip experiment were combined with technology that amplified brain waves, he disclosed. The subject was asked to focus on a tiki doll and her thoughts were broadcast through equipment that magnified them into the equivalent of thousands of people thinking the same thing, Warren continued. Eventually, a huge harmonic-type field built up which damaged the equipment and ended the experiment, he recalled. According to Warren, seven days later he began to hear scratching sounds in the walls and saw a distorted human-shaped shadow walk down his staircase. In addition, objects were found inexplicably strewn about, the electrical system in Warren's building melted down, and other tenants claimed to have seen a shadowy being, he said. The implications to understand the nature of ghosts and the relationship between mind and environment are startling, Warren said."
Link to audio interview: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/08/17

Images from Warren's lab set-up:


From Wikipedia (For those not familiar with Tulpas):
Tulpa (Wylie: sprul-pa; Sanskrit: निर्मित nirmita and निर्माण nirmāṇa; "to build" or "to construct") is an upaya concept in Tibetan Buddhism and Bon, discipline and teaching tool. The term was first rendered into English as 'Thoughtform' by Evans-Wentz (1954: p. 29):
"In as much as the mind creates the world of appearances, it can create any particular object desired. The process consists of giving palpable being to a visualization, in very much the same manner as an architect gives concrete expression in three dimensions to his abstract concepts after first having given them expression in the two-dimensions of his blue-print. The Tibetans call the One Mind's concretized visualization the Khorva (Hkhorva), equivalent to the Sanskrit Sangsara; that of an incarnate deity, like the Dalai or Tashi Lama, they call a Tul-ku (Sprul-sku), and that of a magician a Tul-pa (Sprul-pa), meaning a magically produced illusion or creation. A master of yoga can dissolve a Tul-pa as readily as he can create it; and his own illusory human body, or Tul-ku, he can likewise dissolve, and thus outwit Death. Sometimes, by means of this magic, one human form can be amalgamated with another, as in the instance of the wife of Marpa, guru of Milarepa, who ended her life by incorporating herself in the body of Marpa."

John Myrdhin Reynolds (1996: p. 350) in a note to his English translation of the life story of Garab Dorje defines a tulpa thus:
"A Nirmita (sprul-pa) is an emanation or a manifestation. A Buddha or other realized being is able to project many such Nirmitas simultaneously in an infinite variety of forms."

Thoughtform may be understood as a 'psychospiritual' complex of mind, energy or consciousness manifested either consciously or unconsciously, by a sentient being or in concert. In the Dzogchen view, accomplished thoughtform of the kye rim mode are sentient beings as they have a consciousness field or mindstream confluence in a dynamic of entrainment-secession and organization-entropy of emergent factors or from the mindstream intentionality of progenitor(s). Thoughtform may be benevolent, malevolent or of complex alignment and may be understood as a "spontaneous or intentional manifestation" or "emergence" (Tibetan: rang byung) of the 'Five Pure Lights' (Tibetan: 'od lnga). The Five Pure Lights may be understood as the "radiance" (Tibetan: 'od) or Clear Light (Tibetan: 'od gsal) substrate of 'mindstream' (Tibetan: sems rgyud) and the base or root 'dimensionality of all dharmas' (Sanskrit: dharmadhatu) of Nirvana and Samsara. The mindstream is an entwining or confluence of the 'Eight Consciousnesses' (Tibetan: rnam shes tshogs brgyad). Therefore, the Five Pure Lights are the 'root' (Tibetan: gzhi) of the Western scientific conceptions of matter and energy. From the Dzogchen perspective energy is nondual to 'spiritual energy' or 'vital force' (Tibetan: rlung). For the human species, defined in Traditional Tibetan medicine as the class of entities which holds a human la (Tibetan: bla), the Five Lung are direct homologues of the Five Pure Lights.

Professor H. H. Price, an Oxford philosopher and parapsychologist, held that once an idea has been formed, it "is no longer wholly under the control of the consciousness which gave it birth" but may operate independently on the minds of other people or on physical objects. It is contended that a meme is not a thoughtform, unless it is sentient. Though, memetic theory may be deemed an informative correlation to thoughtform phenomena.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 5th, 2013 at 6:29 AM
Title: Re: Is it possible to get a religious vaccine exemption?
Content:
krodha wrote:
I haven't had a flu shot in probably 20+ years (I'm 30) and I can't remember the last time I had the flu, probably when I was very young. My son is now 4 and he's never had a flu shot either, and no flu. It's unnecessary in my opinion.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 4th, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Title: Re: Illusion
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Your body, mind, thoughts, feelings, and everything you perceive that is apparently outside of you are like reflections in a mirror...an illusion. The Nature of Mind is like the mirror...not an illusion.


kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,

outside of you are like reflections in a mirror

That is very interesting, how are those reflections seen regarding the mirror? A mirror can reflect that is sure, but how can outer phenomena reflect regarding the mind? Does the eye here function as the reflecting factor?

- I know there is also a view / vision possible from inside to outside...........
- From the outer side are all things which do come out of Nature absolutely pure and clear.........


Mutsug Marro
KY

krodha wrote:
The nature of mind is also illusory, everything is illusory according to dzogchen.

Inside/outside are merely conventional designations which are useful but are ultimately empty. Conventionally, notions of inside and outside the body (subjective and objective experience) are important because working with the body is an important aspect of dzogchen, but when it comes to the view everything is primordially pure and free from extremes, so when resting in the view there's no need to reify appearances being outside or inside, everything is just appearing.

Important not to fixate on the idea of a mirror (i.e. a substantiated background or substratum) either because that creates a subtle reference point. The mirror metaphor is implemented to make us notice how the mirror's capacity to reflect is inseparable from the reflections themselves (so we can apply that to our own experience). If that metaphor is applied to oneself; the mirror's capacity to reflect corresponds to our immediate capacity to experience... and the mirror's reflections correspond to the phenomena of experience. The mirror's capacity to reflect is inseparable from the reflections, and our immediate capacity to experience is inseparable from experience itself etc. When the direct intuitive knowledge (that metaphor is meaning to convey) is recognized, that is the view. But again, within that nothing is ever established or unestablished (kadag).


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 31st, 2013 at 7:35 AM
Title: Re: Question about Khenpo Gangshar's vivid awareness
Content:
rachmiel said:
One simply IS awareness.

krodha wrote:
Be weary of this notion, it has dangerous implications in Buddhism's point of view. It's closer to the hindu view refuted by the Buddha. If 'you' go from being Joe Blow to being 'awareness', then that is nothing more than 'you' identifying with something else, it merely reifies the self (and worse, the self now becomes deluded into thinking it's eternal and permanent).

rachmiel said:
...My question: Which of these types of awareness is vivid awareness?

krodha wrote:
CrawfordHollow is right you should seek guidance from a qualified teacher on questions like these. For the sake of the conversation, 'vivid awareness' in the context that book is using the term, would be the objectless, but you must be careful not to reify and objectify 'awareness' as well. Both objects and awareness are primordially empty.

rachmiel said:
Specifically, is it the subtlest form of awareness of objects, in which one perceives sensations without naming them?

krodha wrote:
That would technically still be the ālaya, it's a subtle point of reference created and maintained by habitual tendency and karmic traces. The ālaya has to fall away so that there is no subject-object split, even subtly, and that isn't done by actually removing the subject-object, but through recognition of your nature which is revealed by the teacher. You should receive introduction from a qualified teacher if you haven't already. It's good to get some semblance of an understanding through intellectual models like you're doing, but ultimately it's important to be mindful and careful not to get caught up in the mind-models.

rachmiel said:
Or is it pure awareness, in which there are no objects, just awareness itself?

krodha wrote:
Not even awareness, nothing is established, it's a freedom from extremes. So not the non-existence of objects and awareness, but the realization that they arose from confusion and so in the recognition of primordial wisdom, non-existence is not possible because existence isn't suggested to begin with. Objects are known to be illusory, like the reflection of the moon in water, apparent yet unreal.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, January 19th, 2013 at 1:07 PM
Title: Re: A & Thigle in Dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
That's precisely how he puts it. "Do your best". That may be considered quality of practice in Maha-yoga and Anu-yoga and that is all well and good. ChNN is teaching Anu-yoga in the theme of Ati-yoga, and so the visualizations should remain true to the practice within reason. The quality of practice is gauged in ones ability to access the authentic condition and rest in that. Fixation on the clarity and exact details of visualization is not the point and if anything it can become a distraction, especially if you think you're actually making progress or refining the quality of your practice through the power and detail of your visualization.

Dronma said:
That's right! But ChNN Rinpoche never said to construct visualizations according to our fantasy! Isn't it? 
Moreover, everybody is "doing his/her best" with different way, so why not if somebody has the ability to refine the quality of the practice through the power and detail of visualization?

pawel said:
Doing practices qualified way is a matter of familiarity with them, ie of not being beginner with them. If you're going to do semzins and rushens for example you have many Tibetan letters to visualize. And they aid / lead to that knowledge you're speaking of and practitioner can develop, and they should be done precise and qualified way. And so goes with all anuyoga tantras, all Guruyogas and all else.

asunthatneversets said:
The point is that whether you visualize a hazy blue light instead of a perfect blue hum, or a English A instead of a Tibetan A, it does not obstruct the practice. The authentic condition is not Tibetan, I myself prefer the Tibetan letters, but to insist to someone else that they must aspire to eventually implement the Tibetan letters or else their practice is going to be compromised is incorrect in the view of dzogchen. Ones practice should be what the teacher gives, endowed with the blessings of the lineage.



Dronma said:
The blue, white, red lights (or whatever color in different practices), and the Latin A (in Guru Yoga) are still in the context of the transmission from ChNN Rinpoche himself, and not mental fabrication of anybody. 

PS. I suspect that the confusion might come from the wrong idea that the 2 Tibetan A are something like the Latin capital A and the small a, which in fact is the same letter. Tibetan language has totally different structure than European languages, and it does not include at all capital and small letters. The so called here full A and short A are 2 different letters in Tibetan alphabet! So, trying to use the "short A" instead of the A (which is transmitted) is very peculiar idea, so much as it is trying to use any other Tibetan letter (ka, ya, zha etc) in the practice of Guru Yoga.

krodha wrote:
For the record I never suggested random self concocted visualizations.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, January 19th, 2013 at 2:56 AM
Title: Re: A & Thigle in Dzogchen
Content:
pawel said:
That's not how Chogyal Namkhai Norbu puts it.
Details of visualizations are important, that makes partially what is meant by quality of practice.

krodha wrote:
That's precisely how he puts it. "Do your best". That may be considered quality of practice in Maha-yoga and Anu-yoga and that is all well and good. ChNN is teaching Anu-yoga in the theme of Ati-yoga, and so the visualizations should remain true to the practice within reason. The quality of practice is gauged in ones ability to access the authentic condition and rest in that. Fixation on the clarity and exact details of visualization is not the point and if anything it can become a distraction, especially if you think you're actually making progress or refining the quality of your practice through the power and detail of your visualization.

pawel said:
Yes, all of practices should be guarded with three sacred principles (beginning with right motivation, continued with Awareness and ended with dedication); if one has no capacity for the second then should be guarded with presence.

krodha wrote:
Rightly so, although 'awareness', in the context of dzogchen, is a term that should go the way of the dinosaur.

pawel said:
Doing practices qualified way is a matter of familiarity with them, ie of not being beginner with them. If you're going to do semzins and rushens for example you have many Tibetan letters to visualize. And they aid / lead to that knowledge you're speaking of and practitioner can develop, and they should be done precise and qualified way. And so goes with all anuyoga tantras, all Guruyogas and all else.

krodha wrote:
The point is that whether you visualize a hazy blue light instead of a perfect blue hum, or a English A instead of a Tibetan A, it does not obstruct the practice. The authentic condition is not Tibetan, I myself prefer the Tibetan letters, but to insist to someone else that they must aspire to eventually implement the Tibetan letters or else their practice is going to be compromised is incorrect in the view of dzogchen. Ones practice should be what the teacher gives, endowed with the blessings of the lineage, but within that practice minor variants in A's or colored light instead of a symbol does not deviate in the least. If it works for someone else then that is wonderful. The best advice I ever received was 'don't get caught up in the bullshit'... recognize the essence, return to the essence, return to the essence, return to the essence.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, January 18th, 2013 at 3:06 PM
Title: Re: A & Thigle in Dzogchen
Content:
pawel said:
You can use the latin 'A' (mentioned earlier as English - well, ) butthe destination is to learn the Tibetan A and apply the GuruYoga correctly according to the transmission. Rinpoche mentiones this often, there's no problem in learning a few Tibetan characters. The same goes for the visualizations of GuruYoga for Padmasambhava (there's Om, Ah Hum which can be changed for lights of respective colors for beginners) and initiations. It's important to grow up from the beginner's phase.

krodha wrote:
When it comes to these symbols there really isn't a hierarchy of validity, whatever works for the individual is what's appropriate. As long as the essential characteristics of the practice are accounted for (such as the sound 'ahhhh' like Rinpoche suggested) and the right intention is there the practice is good to go. Visualizing lights instead of symbols, or symbols in a certain language isn't going to obstruct the practice. It's easy to get caught up in the minor details (and it's true sometimes the details are very important), but most important of all is the essence of the practice which is integrating with the knowledge revealed by the teacher. Practices are supports for that, and so it's not really a matter of growing up from a beginners phase, but increased familiarity with that knowledge.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, January 17th, 2013 at 6:35 PM
Title: Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Content:
Astus said:
Advaita thinks consciousness (vijnana) is/has an eternal part. Buddhism refutes it.

lowlydog said:
Consciousness is permanent/eternal and Buddhism does not refute this. Advaita and Buddhism are the same teachings when understood(practically experienced) correctly.

rachMiel,

bodhicitta= pure awareness= brahman, but what you are suggesting scares the crap out of those who hang on to their religious beliefs to tightly.

krodha wrote:
Buddhism definitely refutes the idea that consciousness is permanent and eternal.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, January 15th, 2013 at 2:59 PM
Title: Re: A & Thigle in Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
You can use the english 'A' if that is easier, he's mentioned this quite a few times.

"If you prefer an English 'A' it is acceptable. The important thing is that it corresponds in your mind to the sound 'Ahhh'. It is important that when you see that letter you automatically know what its sound is. If you do not succeed in concentrating and seeing this at first, it may be that you do not know how to visualize. Try writing an 'A' on a piece of paper, put it in front of you, and stare at it for awhile. Close your eyes and this 'A' will appear before your mind immediately. In this way you will get a more precise image." 
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

The quote above is from the book 'Dream Yoga and the Practice of Natural Light', and so the advice is the context of that practice, but the same principle applies to Guru Yoga.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, December 28th, 2012 at 3:07 PM
Title: Re: What else to do. Waiting for Rainbow Body.
Content:
CrawfordHollow said:
...I sent you several PMs trying to help you find a teacher and explain what little I know about Dzogchen.  I am sorry if you are above all of that, but- no teacher, no transmission, no Dzogchen.  I wish you a very good night.  I hope you find the answers you are looking for.  Oh, and what you are practicing is not Thogal.  Good luck.

krodha wrote:
I too sent a cautionary PM. I'm sorry you aren't endowed with the acumen to heed warning, Open Intelligence. As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You've been advised by myself and others to suspend your endeavors and seek a qualified teacher, so you can't plead ignorance. Hard to watch you hang yourself like this but seems you can't save others from themselves. William Blake once said “The fool who persists in his folly will become wise.” I hope for your sake he's right.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 25th, 2012 at 8:34 AM
Title: Re: Illusion
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Your body, mind, thoughts, feelings, and everything you perceive that is apparently outside of you are like reflections in a mirror...an illusion. The Nature of Mind is like the mirror...not an illusion.

krodha wrote:
Much better to use the mirror's capacity to reflect, rather than the mirror itself in my opinion. I wrote this awhile ago to clarify something I had written that was posted on a blog...

"...The mirror-analogy is commonly used in attempting to describe the 'nature of mind' and there is a common misconception which tends to arise from this analogy because the implementation of a mirror seems to convey a substantiated background (or unchanging source). I was attempting to point out that the analogy isn't meant to explore the mirror in itself as an unchanging basis, but solely the mirror's capacity to reflect. So the capacity is the aspect the analogy is exploring. Equating the nature of mind to the mirror's reflective capacity (but not the mirror itself). That the reflections are inseparable from that capacity, just like AEN elucidated with the fire-to-heat and water-to-wetness examples. That capacity isn't a conceivable quality, it isn't something which can be 'known' as a substantiated suchness. The capacity (to reflect) cannot be rolled, thrown or bounced, it has no shape, color, location, weight or height. There is nothing there one can point to and declare 'there it is!'. Yet in it's elusiveness it is still fully apparent in the presence of the reflections themselves. The capacity is evident because of the reflections and the reflections are evident because of the capacity, in truth they co-emergent and mutually interdependent qualities which are completely inseparable. Evident, clear and pure, yet unestablished, ungraspable and ephemeral."

Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche used the capacity aspect as well in one of his Longde books....

"Our primordial potentiality is beyond form, but we have a symbol, and when we have a symbol then we can get in that knowledge. It is very easy to understand with an example. If you want to discover the potentiality of a mirror, how can you go about it? You can neither see or touch the nature or potentiality of a mirror, nor can you have contact with it in any ordinary way, the only way is to look in a mirror, and then the reflections will appear and through the reflections you can discover it. The reflections are not really the potentiality of the mirror but they are manifesting through that potentiality, so they are something visible for us. With this example we can get in the knowledge of the potentiality of the mirror...."
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

"Why then do we have this symbol of primordial potentiality? Primordial potentiality in the Dzogchen teaching is explained with three principles: sound, light and rays. This does not mean that sound, light and rays are manifestations, but rather that these are the root of all manifestations. When you have this potentiality then there is always the possibility of manifestations. If we wonder, for example what the potentiality of a mirror looks like, we couldn't say very much, we could say for example that it is clear, pure, limpid and so forth, but we could not really have contact with it directly through our senses. In the same way sound, light and rays are the essence of potentiality. When we have this potentiality, if secondary causes arise, then anything can manifest. 
What do we mean by secondary causes? For example, if in front of a mirror there is tree, or a flower or a person, the object instantly manifests. These are secondary causes. So if there is no secondary cause there is no manifestation. Thus in front of our primordial potentiality there are all the possibilities of manifestation of the secondary causes....."
- Chögyal Namkhai Norbu

I think it's an important distinction... the mirror itself is often used to elucidate the nature of mind, but I personally believe it can potentially convey the wrong idea, the mirror's capacity (or potentiality) allows for a much more dynamic and less substantial notion of the natural state, more of an accurate representation IMO.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 25th, 2012 at 8:20 AM
Title: Re: Illusion
Content:
krodha wrote:
The reflection of the moon in water is a good analogy, it's valid in that it's an appearance but it isn't anything substantial at all, all phenomena are like that. Appearances do not actually create anything, nor are they anything in and of themselves.

Here's the 8 similes of illusion (sgyu ma'i dpe brgyad):
1. Dream: like a dream, objects perceived with the five senses are not there, but they appear through delusion.
2. Magical illusion: like a magic illusion, things are made to appear due to the temporary coming together of causes and conditions.
3. Hallucination or trompe-l'oeil: like a hallucination, things appear, yet there is nothing there.
4. Mirage: like a mirage, things appear, but they are not real.
5. Echo: like an echo, things can be perceived, but there is nothing there, either inside or outside.
6. City of gandharvas: like a city of gandharvas, there is neither a dwelling nor anyone to dwell.
7. Reflection: like a reflection, things appear, but have no reality of their own .
8. Apparition: like an apparition, there are different types of appearances, but they are not really there.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, December 5th, 2012 at 4:43 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Sherlock said:
ChNN himself also kept short hair for years though.


Dronma said:
Talking about hairs, while our aim is the state of Dzogchen which is beyond any limitation, is at least funny....

krodha wrote:
True but no limitations also means total freedom to talk about hairs!


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, December 4th, 2012 at 9:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
alpha said:
I have a question about a certain custom in Dc.I have noticed that lots of male students of Rinpoche and Rinpoche himself have long hair.
Can someone say what is the significance behind that?
This is an aspect which is never talked about or explained and i wonder if is just a mimetic kind of behaviour or is there a tradition with its rules and commitments?

When i say mimetic i dont mean this in a kind of derogatory way.As we can see in lots of sanghas the students  quite often adopt styles of behaviour and dress which can be directly linked to the way the leader ,teacher of that sangha behaves and dresses.

krodha wrote:
The long hair is briefly discussed at around 4:10 in this video (the DC trend has nothing to do with this though... to my knowledge at least). Seems the interviewers attempt to ask about it but don't get too much info, and then the narrator later briefly discusses the growing of the hair and then mentions the cutting of it as being a sign that the individual is preparing for death. Usually individuals who have taken the vow curl their hair to form a little bun (or giant bun depending on how long it's been growing) and the spot in the middle of the curl has some significance. It's definitely a ngakpa thing but also transcends the ngakpa lifestyle since other yogi's do it (both indian and tibetan). The ngakpa's grow their hair long to contrast what renunciant monks following the sutric path do (shaving their heads).

Talks about the hair between 4:10 and 6:10
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, November 14th, 2012 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Critical Buddhism and "full strength anatman"
Content:
krodha wrote:
There's a quote by Longchenpa out there somewhere where he states that the tathāgatagarbha is a concept used to instill faith and motivation in aspirants who have little experience, but lacks reality apart from being implemented in that way. Found that interesting...

If anyone knows that quote please post because I've been trying to track it down for awhile!


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, October 22nd, 2012 at 1:20 PM
Title: Re: Dealing with purified karma
Content:
deff said:
i think the problem in this case might be meditating while driving

krodha wrote:
I meditate while driving whenever possible... On Fridays I drive for 7-8 hours and meditate almost the whole time. Only had once or twice where some really strange nyams started to happen and I had to cut the meditation off, which is unfortunate because it would've been interesting to have those play out, but for fear of crashing I couldn't.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, October 21st, 2012 at 1:26 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara and dzogchen
Content:
rob h said:
Have been kind of loathe to bring this back up, but to be honest I also think a point should be made : the whole idea of arguing, sectarianism and negativity towards eachother when discussing the difference between schools seems like a clear sign that as we do this we're caught in delusion.

krodha wrote:
Actually debate is a big part of many schools and isn't seen as a sign of delusion at all. It's always been a cornerstone of these traditions. Rejection of debate is just as much delusion, it all depends on how it's being related to. Pacifism isn't a sign of being in accord with the authentic condition. Plus a lot of this thread has been in response to a certain few people who had been casting unfounded aspersions on this forum for awhile prior to the inception of this thread, and it just came to a head here. It's all good!

"When one who is aware of the correct teachings has judgmental thoughts, the demon of permanence does not make them an obstacle. Finding the differences and refuting the assertions of others is a characteristic of full maturity that cannot be taken away."
- Sūtralamkāra

"If, with the intention of identifying and teaching higher and lower views, other precepts are deprecated, this is not transgression, but greatly increases merit."
- Commentary on The 14 Root Downfalls | rtsa ltung bcu bzhi

Highlights: Tibetan Debate
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6daHMqrMUY
(Excerpts from the inaugural program in Asia Society's Great Debates series, featuring monks from the Drepung Loseling Monastery and a discussion between Geshe Thupten Jinpa [The Dalai Lama's principal translator] and Professor Daniel Perdude.)


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, October 16th, 2012 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Strange sleeping experience
Content:
krodha wrote:
The one or two times it happened to me I never felt a presence, my good friend has it happen all the time and never feels a presence. But there's a room his house where 4 different people have slept and woke up unable to move, they all said the sheets were being pulled tight around them. Weird stuff.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 13th, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Title: Re: Strange sleeping experience
Content:
krodha wrote:
I've had experiences where it feels like I'm dropped into bed and I wake up to the feeling of impact. But I've only had sleep paralysis once or twice both times just waking up and can't move, no fear associated though, more of a confusion type thing. I'm pretty sure the more you meditate the more you'll have unique experiences in sleep/dream states. I used to have that tilting sensation anytime I'd close my eyes, there's a video on YouTube that talks about it being a sign of development/maturation of the subtle body but that's just a video on the internet so no way to know if it's valid... I'll try to find it and post it.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, October 13th, 2012 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Oracles and taking trance...
Content:
Yudron said:
Cool video, asunthatneversets.  Unfortunately, I didn't notice til the end it was put up on Youtube by a Shugden person, with links to their site.

You probably didn't notice that.

krodha wrote:
Ah didn't see that! Otherwise yes I would've found a different link, interesting though, I'm curious as to what the motivation would be behind an organization/individual in support of that cause essentially sponsoring/promoting this video. I'll leave the extent of my prying with that question though and let that sleeping dog lie. Lie in both senses of the word.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, October 12th, 2012 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: Oracles and taking trance...
Content:
krodha wrote:
Interesting documentary on the Dalai Lama's oracles...

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, October 2nd, 2012 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen really beyond cause and effect?
Content:
catmoon said:
All righty. With that kind of agreeent, it must surely be impossible that there would be sects in Dzogchen, since all the teachers are in perfect agreement. It must be nice to enjoy the sort of universal agreement that no other religion in the history of humanity has attained. This would also explain the complete absence of conflict in the Dzogchen threads here.

Nope, couldn't say it with a straight face.

krodha wrote:
By 'sects' are you referring to lineages? There may be minute differences between the traditions/practices of different
lineages but when it comes down to the heart of the matter it's all the same. The universal agreement is merely knowledge of one's state, which is an innate aspect of all beings (and reality in general), if that is recognized then where would contention arise from? Contention and conflict arise from attachment/aversion to ideas and concepts, those ideas aren't dzogchen... though they may be about dzogchen. If debates form then it's only ever ideas which are being discussed, dzogchen in itself is never subject to the debates, this would be impossible.

I'm sure that for those who are unfamiliar with dzogchen, making a statement of that nature sounds like a cop-out, like a member of a religion claiming that their god is beyond everything. And I can even make the statement that "it's not the same", but I'm sure those members of the other religions would say the same thing. So nothing that can be said about dzogchen will prove to be valid, that's why it's based on experiential knowledge. Dzogchen isn't a religion, philosophy etc..

I'm sure that if every individual who contributes to this forum was abiding in the knowledge of their authentic condition then there may be less conflict, but this is (most likely) not the case. So the character of these discussions naturally reflect the variety of individuals involved, this is only natural.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 27th, 2012 at 5:25 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara and dzogchen
Content:
byamspa said:
Energizer bunny thread...it keeps going and going and going....

greentreee said:
funny you mention that, in some ways, this does seem like a tortoise and hare debate about where or more appropriately, what, the end is, and who'll get there first!

krodha wrote:
I don't think the discussion is of that nature in any way. It's not about what the end is, or who will get there first... those are childish concerns, in my opinion at least. Yogācāra is all well and good, it is what it is... and likewise dzogchen is what it is. The issue is that there are individuals posting here, who don't understand dzogchen and are baselessly asserting that the two (Yogācāra and Dzogchen) are equivalent. That, is why there has to be extensive clarification and refutation, because they are not the same, and it is reckless and dangerous to claim that they are. As long as those who are actively engaged in making unfounded statements of that nature continue to do so, rebuttals will occur. And if it never ends then so be it.

This is a public platform that is somewhat popular, it's certainly a valuable resource and wellspring of knowledge (this day in age) for those interested in these teachings. People come here to learn and further their own understanding, if we sit idly by and allow incorrect or uninformed statements to be made regarding certain traditions then that is what is being read, and that information is what people are walking away with. It would not be fair to them nor to the teaching itself to remain silent and enable exegetical degradation of that nature.

Not that the teaching truly can be degraded, but disinformation should not be allowed. I get that there are some aspects of opinion which differ in regards to some minute details, and we're all welcome to our own opinions, they should all be celebrated. But taking the entire body of ati-yoga and making uninformed blanketed statements regarding it's nature that aim to present yogācāra as it's equal (or greater than) is incorrigible. So the debating isn't meant to degrade or belittle yogācāra, it's purpose is to maintain, fortify, and point out those aspects which separate the two (yogācāra and dzogchen).


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 26th, 2012 at 5:36 AM
Title: Re: Is Dzogchen really beyond cause and effect?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Posted this quote before, but it's relevant to this topic, and a good quote...

"The pure mind, the ubiquitous essence - 
it is spontaneously, originally, perfect;
so strenuous engagement with the ten techniques
is unnecessary, superfluous.

...I am inscrutable and cannot be cultivated.
All the ten techniques are likewise transcended,
so nothing can be done to affect me.
Those who try to approach me on a causal path,
desirous of catching a glimpse of my face,
seeking me through the ten techniques,
fall straight to earth like a tenderfoot sky-walker,
tumbling down due to deliberate effort.

I, the supreme source, I am the revelation,
and transcend every sphere of activity,
so a view of me cannot be cultivated,
and the ten techniques are meaningless.
If you still think that the ten techniques have purpose,
look at me, and finding nothing to see,
taking no view, remain at that zero-point.
Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,
so vows and discipline are redundant;
the essence is always spontaneously present,
so any effort to find it is always superfluous;
self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,
so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;
everybody already lives on my level,
so there is no place to reach through purification;
I embrace all and everything,
so there can be no path that leads to me;
I am forever incapable of dualization,
so there is never anything to be labeled 'subtle';
my form embraces everything,
so there has never been any 'duality';
I am self-sprung awareness from the very beginning,
so I can never be nailed down;
since I am the heart of total presence,
there is no other source of secret precepts."
- Samantabhadra


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 25th, 2012 at 7:32 PM
Title: Re: Masturbation & Sexual/Porn Addiction
Content:
krodha wrote:
Hey, it's safer than a real sex addiction where someone is risking exposure to sexually transmitted diseases. No reason to feel guilty vajrahorizon, things like this only become an issue if they are impeding upon other aspects of your life. For example, if you couldn't stop masturbating and it began to impact your work/social life etc... but everything in moderation is healthy and there's no need to feel guilty. In other facets of the teaching there are subtle aspects to the appearance of lust being a dualistic (and therefore delusional) expression of experience, but that can be argued as being relative as well depending on the individual's relationship to it. Overall though I wouldn't worry about it, it's good for the system every now and again.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 25th, 2012 at 7:15 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara and dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The only dichotomy dzogchen employs is delusion and wisdom.

Jyoti said:
There is no such dichotomy in dzogchen, yogacara or any definitive teaching, as dichotomy does not apply in term of opposites, but the speculation of the body as two. Nonduality literally refers to not-two, not about any opposites or extremes.

krodha wrote:
There certainly is such a dichotomy in dzogchen, there is ma-rigpa and rigpa, ignorance and wisdom, but neither are ever truly established. Nothing is truly established.

asunthatneversets said:
Dependent arising is the way in which distinct things or qualities seemingly
exist.

Jyoti said:
What you refer is the aspect of mere appearance, not the aspect of dependent arising, the latter is the function of means, which is based on the alaya-vijnana and the 7 consciousnesses. The function is depended on the seeds and the perfuming agents (7 consciousnesses).

krodha wrote:
No, it refers to the way in which distinct things or qualities seemingly exist, including your notion of the 7 consciousnesses.

asunthatneversets said:
Dependent arising can't be an object of the 7 consciousnesses because the 7 consciousnesses only exist on a conventional level and therefore are dependently originated themselves.

Jyoti said:
Of course not. The consciousnesses are the causes of dependent arising appearances. However, they have intimate relationship. Dependent arising is the ripening
appearance of the seed, the cause of the ripening of the seed is the 7 consciousnesses (the perfuming agents). Both the appearance of dependent arising and the 7 consciousnesses arise sponteneously from the basis (alaya-vijnana).

krodha wrote:
The consciousnesses being empty, cannot be the cause of anything. There are no agents. The basis is not the ālayavijñāna.

asunthatneversets said:
Since dzogchen is experiential, the truth it points to is unassailable and cannot be adulterated. Certain groups or individuals (such as yourself) may attempt to interpret
dzogchen within the frame of their own structure of reasoning, and in doing so, adulterate it... but at that point it's no longer dzogchen which is being adulterated, all that is being botched is a mere intellectual translation/interpretation.

Jyoti said:
The structure of the three principles (body, form and means) is not exclusive ownership of dzogchen, true ownership belongs to reality (dharmadhatu). Any teaching will have individual who wrongly interprete them, but these wrong interpretation has nothing to do with the principles. Thus, yogacara represent the three principles, when dzogchenpas judge yogacara based on interpretation of individual, this is termed relying on the persons and not the dharma. Any person who understand the dharma on the standpoint of yogacara can easily refute such judgement, the same apply to dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
True in theory.

asunthatneversets said:
You only enjoy Mipham because his exposition matches your own point of view, and therefore you continually champion his exposition in The Lions Roar. You're only looking to validate your construct of beliefs.

Jyoti said:
For person who didn't understand the dharma, then the attachment to words, rather than the meaning is the norm, such a person will easily attached to other norms of
their chosen tradition, and based on these as 'truth'. The chances of their ability to accept the teaching of other traditions is slim, as their 'truth' is based on differences that is apparent to them. Mipham does not belong to this group of dzogchenpa, he has own vision of dzogchen and understand its relationship to other traditions, this is the sign of his mastery of the dharma, and the reason that his writing is worth refering.

krodha wrote:
In your opinion... based on your attachments to the norms of your chosen tradition and considering it to be 'truth', as you put it.

asunthatneversets said:
I never said everything is consciousness, the natural state isn't consciousness.

Jyoti said:
I didn't infer to your opinion about consciousness. Dzogchen didn't avoid the term consciousness, instead it uses terms with similar meaning such as wisdom, awareness,
cognition, wakefulness, presence, nature state, nature of mind, primordial experience, existential condition, etc.  There is no merit in such usage of words, as it only serve to confuse with the variety of words, where the standard dharma terminology 'consciousness' is the same and doesn't confuse.

krodha wrote:
What the word implies is of incredible importance. And what YOU imply when you use the term consciousness, is not what dzogchen refers to with terms like wisdom. Don't conflate the two.

asunthatneversets said:
The reason a term like 'consciousness' is usually avoided is because if dzogchen asserted that everything is consciousness then it would run the risk of suggesting the existence of an abiding ground of being, or substratum.

Jyoti said:
Dzogchen already asserts everything is clarity (form) of awareness (consciousness). Dzogchen also claimed a common ground (alaya) of everything, so you are not making sense.

krodha wrote:
Clarity is not form. Some translators use the term 'awareness' but they do not state that everything is awareness. So no, dzogchen does not assert that everything is clarity of awareness in any way. The ālaya, is the all-ground, which is the basis of ignorance... the ground of confusion, from which everything arises. 'Things' arise from non-recognition of the primordial state, they do not arise from the primordial state, the primordial state has never arisen. I'm making perfect sense, you don't understand this teaching, and you even went as far as to claim that there is no such thing as the ālaya in your last response. So your bias has already clouded your ability to understand what is being pointed to.

asunthatneversets said:
Saying that everything is consciousness suggests that something has been established, which is perfectly acceptable in yogācāra, but not in dzogchen.

Jyoti said:
This is a flaw reasoning, there is no assertion in yogacara that the 7 consciousnesses are established (permanent), unlike dzogchen, yogacara distinguished the body and means, and so what is not establish and what is established (8th consciousness) have no confusion, and so what belong to the realm of existent, can be admitted as permanent or existent without fear of confusion.

krodha wrote:
You're still asserting that there is something which belongs to a realm of existence (i.e. established) and can be admitted as permanent. This is not the dzogchen view.

asunthatneversets said:
The actualization of the natural state is the recognition of the authentic condition, that condition isn't consciousness, only the teaching you champion (Yogācāra and other eternalist views) claims that.

Jyoti said:
If the nature state is depended on an actualization, then it is conditional to the actualization, thus saying it is 'nature' is contradictory of term. A condition is simply a condition, no different with regards to authentic (dependent arising nature) or unauthentic (imaginary nature). Thus the ability to recognize is the same with whatever arise (mental condition or object). Due to your having to select an ultimate object (authentic condition) in order for recognition to occur, then the recognition is conditional upon the ultimate object. The problem with your view is this ultimate object is not consciousness, then the sources of arising from the 12 entrances are not it, since the 12 entrances are none other than consciousnesses.

krodha wrote:
The actualization is the removal of ignorance which obscures the primordial state. The primordial state isn't conditional to anything. There is no ultimate object to select, the recognition is conditional upon the adventitious appearance of delusion which obscures, when the delusion is known to be delusion, then that is said to be recognition. In my opinion, the problem with your view is that you posit and ultimate and you assert it to be consciousness. Likewise you claim there are sources of arising and then state that there are 12 entrances which are none other than consciousness. You're talking about yogācāra, not dzogchen.

asunthatneversets said:
Consciousness (as a term) is also avoided because it suggests a number of other subtleties, for example: 'one who is conscious' and/or a localized occurrence of consciousness contrasting other pockets of consciousness (as you suggest below) and so on and so forth.

Jyoti said:
As mentioned, the term with similar meaning in dzogchen is awareness, according to your example, it suffered the same problem (which is not reasonable).

krodha wrote:
As mentioned, awareness is a term employed by a select group of translators and does not accurately represent dzogchen.

asunthatneversets said:
'Awakened mind' is just a relative term, it isn't to be taken literally, nothing truly awakens, and there is no mind in dzogchen.

Jyoti said:
In your own word "'Awakened mind' is just another way of saying prajñā, yeshe, sherab etc...", so I didn't bring up awakened mind, I only response to your usage of the term. That said, the body of yogacara is not mind either, but in the same way as dzogchen require the upholding of vidya, the relying on the mind (means) is clearly required. Surely nothing truly awaken, because the body can't be awakened as it is beyond change, but the whole teaching (dzogchen or yogacara) is not about the body but the means (bodhi).

krodha wrote:
Dzogchen is not about the 'means'. Again, you're talking about yogācāra, not dzogchen.

asunthatneversets said:
They are the result of conceptual projection. People are conceptual projections, and yes the person's body is due to dependent origination, it depends on the projected web of concepts.

Jyoti said:
You clearly failed to understand it is the ripening of the seed within the storehouse consciousness that is the cause of the manifestation of the appearances
(consciousnesses) of dependent arising. If a concept can determined the appearance of dependent arising, then we don't need to accumulate merit or planting the seed of virtue, we only need to day dream with the assurance that it will be part of one's dependent arising appearance. Unfortunately, we don't have such a dharma.

krodha wrote:
According to yogācāra it is the ripening of the seed within the storehouse consciousness that is the cause of the manifestation of appearances of dependent arising. This is not the view of dzogchen. You don't seem to get this.

asunthatneversets said:
You must be using the term "intellect" to represent knowledge of thusness, usually "intellect" is used to signify conceptual processes of reasoning.

Jyoti said:
The intellect is indeed the conceptual processes of reasoning, but with the additional knowledge of thusness, without the latter, it is not termed the intellect, at least not the intellect in concordance with the reason. In buddhist discussion, as the example of sutra, usually when speaking of intellect, it excludes the option for worldly intellect, so the word intellect is assumed to be associated with the reason of thusness.

krodha wrote:
Yes I figured this was the case but I appreciate the clarification.

asunthatneversets said:
Internal and external are conceptual projections, they do not exist inherently, they have nothing to do with vision. Even vision itself is a delusional notion when it comes down to it. They are imputed constructs. Formless meditative states (as in blank voids of closed off samadhi) have nothing to do with dzogchen.

Jyoti said:
Definitively speaking, they exist inherently as well as not exist inherently, due to being both permanent and impermanent. Thus to simply say they don't exist is to stray to the extreme of non-existent. To say they are conceptual projections is wrong since the two-fold manifestations are based on the form and means of the three principle structure (yogacara) or clarity and capacity of the three existential modes (dzogchen).

krodha wrote:
They can be said to exist conventionally, but not inherently. Within the conventional there is no actual production or origination, these seeming appearances are illusory and are products of ignorance. I'm not saying they're non-existent, they would have to initially exist to have the possibility of being non-existent.

asunthatneversets said:
There are no non-deceptive mental images being that there are no mental images.

Jyoti said:
Then why assert a conceptual construction to the two-fold manifestation of consciousness and to the dependent arising nature? This conceptual construction is where it fit here (the imaginary nature).

krodha wrote:
The conceptual construction is the result of ignorance.

asunthatneversets said:
Affliction is never bodhi. You either have one or the other and neither are ever truly established.

Jyoti said:
Affliction is none other than consciousness, the body of consciousness is the thusness, so affliction is none other than thusness, knowledge of thusness is the intellect, the intellect is associated with bodhi. Thus affliction is bodhi (i.e. for one who understand the connection).

krodha wrote:
According to yogācāra, not dzogchen.

asunthatneversets said:
Bodhi as a term is only implemented to signify the absence of affliction, in contrast of affliction, otherwise bodhi is simply the natural state.

Jyoti said:
Bodhi literally translated as 'awakening', the nature state is the thusness, thusness is of the body, whereas bodhi is of the means.

krodha wrote:
Semantics.

asunthatneversets said:
Only according to Yogācāra are there natures which inherently exist, according to dzogchen, nothing exists inherently, everything is illusory.

Jyoti said:
Definitively speaking, only the ultimate nature inherently exist, whereas the dependent arising nature both exist and non-exist. However, when the dependent arising nature is posited as illusory, then the illusory nature (dependent arising nature) still exist and non-exist, thus to say 'nothing exists inherently' is falling into the extreme of non-existent. However, even this exist and non-exist dependent arising nature (means) is not the ultimate nature (body), thus there is the two truths, which is the unity of the means and body.

krodha wrote:
Again, only according to yogācāra. There is no ultimate nature which inherently exists in dzogchen. To say 'nothing exists inherently' means just that (nothing exists inherently). It isn't falling into the extreme of nihilism, because nihilism would require something to be negated in the first place. You assume that there are aspects which have been established and therefore within your reasoning, to posit them as lacking inherency is a nihilistic view, but this conclusion is predicated on your initial assumption. As it is, essentialism/eternalism/nihilism are all conceptual notions which are based on the notion of something to be affirmed or negated. Dzogchen understands that these notions belong to conceptualization and do not transcend conceptualization. Reality is free of extremes (as was pointed out above).

asunthatneversets said:
there is no specific faculty called the 'imaginary nature' in dzogchen.

Jyoti said:
Dzogchen has employed deity yoga as well as symbols of visualization, yet it didn't has 'imaginary nature' as a terminology, is indication that dzogchen is not as great as its name suggest. Also this imaginary nature is not a faculty (but of the three natures), there is only six faculties (sense organ) spoken of in buddhism. As a side note, dzogchen also mistakenly associate the 7th and 8th consciousnesses as the skandas, there is only five skandas in buddhism. This is the reason it associates the 8th consciousnesses as the means, and so must invent a body such as alaya (ground) devoid of consciousness. If one read the 'Doctrine of Mere Consciousness', there is passage showing how the 8th consciousness can be proven to exist independently of the dissolution of the skandas.

krodha wrote:
Maha-yoga and anu-yoga employ deity yoga and symbols of visualization, dzogchen (ati-yoga) is the primordial state. The ālaya gives rise to the appearance of consciousness, the ālaya is the kun-gzhi or all-ground, the basis of samsara and nirvana (samsara, because it is the basis of confusion... nirvana, because it provides the potentality for actualizing liberation). The gzhi, or ground is most likely what you are referring to as that which is 'devoid of consciousness'... it is the ever-pure and unborn.

asunthatneversets said:
The nirmanakaya is the unconfined, unobstructed and uninterrupted capacity and/or energetic display of the primordial state.



Jyoti said:
This 'capacity' in dzogchen is another word for 'means' in yogacara.



krodha wrote:
Perhaps, I actually have no idea what you're referring to with a lot of the terminology you use, unfortunately.

asunthatneversets said:
Those were rhetorical questions. But if we must answer them (as you attempted to do), the correct answers are, yes, the intellect is responsible for their inception and yes, it is also responsible for the notion of sensory consciousnesses and any subsequent perceptions based on those consciousnesses. In dzogchen none of these qualities are established.



Jyoti said:
Only the body is considered established (as permanent), not the means, so rendering the means as unestablished is to maintain the dynamic and creativity of it.



krodha wrote:
Yes, according to yogācāra... according to dzogchen nothing is established.

asunthatneversets said:
According to Yogācāra... not dzogchen.



Jyoti said:
It is also according to Dzogchen based on Mipham's texts.



krodha wrote:
We have already established that you are basing these notions off of some texts (specifically 'The Lion's Roar') written by Mipham which are denatured exegetically.

asunthatneversets said:
Those differences point to nothing except for what you wish to extract from them. The existence of space and time are delusory notions born of conceptualization, predicated on the delusory notion of a subject-object dichotomy. Your example assumes that you as a subject are in fact observing an objective aircraft. It also assumes that the aircraft is an object which is truly apprehended by the eye consciousness and ear consciousness. You presuppose the appearance of a consecutive unfolding of moments in time to be authentic and again, also consider experience to be divided into an internal-external dichotomy. Far too many suppositions occurring, your argument and example are again irrevocably flawed.



Jyoti said:
As stated the two-fold division (subject and object) of consciousness is the form and means of the body (yogacara) or clarity and capacity of the essence (dzogchen), it is the support of the dependent arising nature (nirmanakaya) as well as pure realms (sambogakaya). Conceptual construction only responsible for the formation of the imaginary nature, a term which is foreign to your tradition that also entertained visualization practices.



krodha wrote:
You're talking about yogācāra.

asunthatneversets said:
Any dharma of permanence is a deluded dharma.



Jyoti said:
So the dharmakaya (samantabadra) and nirvana of your tradition are not permanent, because if the dharmakaya (samantabadra) and nirvana are permanent it is a deluded dharma?



krodha wrote:
They are not permanent, nor are they impermanent.

asunthatneversets said:
There is no quality which possesses only non-cessation, nor any which possesses only endurance. The quote above is stating that out of this apparent reality, which is unborn, appearances seemingly manifest, yet within those appearances nothing is ever truly established, there is only the timeless display of the primordial nature. Because it is beyond the four extremes, within apparent enduring there is no endurance, nothing is created or established. Within apparent cessation, there is nothing which ceases, nothing is destroyed or terminated.



Jyoti said:
I'm not saying the manifested appearance or means are permanent. But refering to the unborn and primordial nature, how can this be impermanent and yet unborn at the same time?



krodha wrote:
How can that which is unborn posses any such characteristics?

asunthatneversets said:
In dzogchen phenomena are products of delusion, if the authentic condition is known then what was previously mistaken as phenomena is known to be the luminous self-display of the basis, and the basis is uncreated. Stating that the dynamism and creativity of reality require a permanent and non-arising basis is flawed logic and nothing more than wishful thinking.



Jyoti said:
Delusion is refering to the imaginary nature produce in the absence of knowledge, but the cause of this delusion which is the dependent arising nature is not produce by the delusion. Otherwise, the delusion which is depended on the dependent arising nature produce the dependent arising nature is not logical, as the former would not exist prior to the 'production' of the latter.



krodha wrote:
Delusion is referring to ma-rigpa.

"Kyema! Although I am devoid of confusion, confusion arose from my expression. After the nature manifested unobstructedly from the unchanging ground, ignorance naturally manifested from the indeterminate compassion. For example, although the sky does not truly posses clouds, the clouds still arise momentarily. Likewise, no ignorance exists in the ground, yet ignorance naturally arises from the aspect of what manifested as compassion. Thus, the 'natural state of the ground of spontaneous presence' was formed."
- The Tantra Of Great Auspicious Beauty

asunthatneversets said:
Padmasambhava had this to say about the two truths in Self Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness:
"The Madhyamikas are (mentally) obscured by their attachments to the extremes of the Two Truths."



Jyoti said:
This is refering to the Madhyamikas (persons) and not Madhyamika, if there is a person with realization of the non-extremes (nonduality) of the two truths, then even though he is of Madhyamika, there is no fault. Similarly a Buddha can take the position of Madhyamika and has flawless view. The difference is just one with realization and one without the realization. One without the realization will rely on the method of analysis to arrive at conceptual understanding of the meaning, this is the cause of the extremes of the two truths (separate and not nondual). However, the doctrine of Madhyamika is not at fault, it is the person who failed to realise the true meaning. The same thing applied to yogacara and dzogchen, faults belonged to individual but not the teaching.



krodha wrote:
That is your interpretation of his statement. Madhyamaka is a wonderful and effective teaching, but he is addressing Madhyamaka in this quote.

asunthatneversets said:
Internal and external are concepts, and while those concepts are useful, they have no authenticity beyond their place as mere concepts. Believing them to be authentic and inherent aspects of experience is delusion.



Jyoti said:
Again only the imaginary nature within the internal and external field are conceptual construction, such conceptual construction has no meaning, not to mention being useful (for what?). This does not include the dependent arising nature within the internal and external field, as this is not of conceptual construction, nor of product of delusion. Also, the two-division of consciousness itself is the form and means of the body which is not of conceptual construction.



krodha wrote:
There are no internal and external fields in dzogchen.

asunthatneversets said:
Your notion of the "underlying truth and reason" is another concept which you've attached to and yes it certainly does provide you with notions of what to accept and reject, as we've all seen regularly on this forum. I do enjoy how you contradict yourself and fall victim to your own projections as your response goes along though.



Jyoti said:
So you are proposing to negate the truth or reason of authentic nature (thusness), viz. the vidya?



krodha wrote:
Only the concepts regarding it.

asunthatneversets said:
The metaphor of the mirror is implemented to elucidate the characteristics of the primordial state, the tendency to interpret the metaphorical use of the mirror-itself as suggesting an abiding ground is a common misconception. In that metaphor it is more accurate to explore the reflective capacity of the mirror, instead of the mirror itself, otherwise we fall victim to the essentialist/eternalist views such as yours. So the mirror's reflective capacity is never tainted by the reflections themselves, much like the natural state's empty essence is ever-pure. The mirror helps to describe the natural state's primordial purity (kadag), spontaneous radiance/presence (lhundrup) and responsiveness (thugs rje).



Jyoti said:
As I mentioned the use of mirror is to communicate the capacity, or means. Rather than 'to elucidate the characteristics of the primordial state' or body,  the mirror is to show the means is capable of reflecting the 'reason' (vidya) of thusness', thus capable of holding the reason in the state of arising, whereas the body itself does not have the arising. This capacity of holding the reason in the state of arising is the intellect.  If the body is to be rely instead of the means (intellect), the use of mirror is redundant. The mirror symbolize the thought (means), the thought of the reason of thusness is symbolize by the mirror's reflection of thusness, which is the same but of different side, the side of non-arising (without thought) which is the original state and the side of arising (with thought) which is the reflected state.



krodha wrote:
This is your yogācārin interpretation of this metaphor.

asunthatneversets said:
Dzogchen is only the primordial state, the anu-yoga practices may be used as supports for maintaining the dzogchen view, but they are not dzogchen any more than walking down the street is dzogchen (if one is maintaining the view). Anu-yoga practices are very useful, but they are not ati-yoga in essence, only when practiced by one who is abiding in the knowledge of ati.



Jyoti said:
In other words, you are saying vidya is dzogchen, I can also say the intellect is yogacara, so what is the difference?



krodha wrote:
We can say lots of things, the difference is that dzogchen is the experience, not the words.

asunthatneversets said:
Samantabhadra is only representative of the primordial state, and in fact is the personification of the primordial state. Samantabhadra has nothing to do with the individuals consciousness.



Jyoti said:
In that case, this is monotheism, since this Samantabhadra has nothing to do with your own consciousness.



krodha wrote:
Your statement is predicated on your assumption that consciousness is the end-all and be-all. And your monotheism comment is in turn predicated on the assumptions that 1) a consciousness exists 2) the primordial state is an object which could exist outside or beyond consciousness, and 3) that the primordial state is an established omniscience of some sort.

asunthatneversets said:
Dzogchen speaks of the destruction of the world at the end of the great kalpa as a metaphor, not to be taken literally, no world has ever been created or destroyed in the view of dzogchen.



Jyoti said:
Metaphor for what? I'm aware of the meaning of non-arising, but that is only refering to the ultimate condition, the dependent-arising nature (the appearance of time) has persistance and it is not terminated on awakening.



krodha wrote:
The dependent arising nature is illusory in dzogchen. The 'ultimate condition' is dzogchen. I believe it's a metaphor in reference to certain mennagde practices.

asunthatneversets said:
Dzogchen only accepts the level of the individual mind-stream as a tentative and relative appearance, which is rendered null and void apart from conventional appearance, so it is completely illusory, but a useful illusion. Individuated seeds of karma are products of delusion and are eradicated upon the actualization of the primordial state. You're reaching quite far in attempting to equate dzogchen to your view you enjoy propagating, it cannot be done.



Jyoti said:
Illusory nature with persistance, this is the meaning. It is not a negation of mere appearance and dependent arising nature. The seeds are always on the constant change of state, from active to inactive based on the presence of perfuming or lack of perfuming. On attaining the bodhi, the bad seeds become inactive, whereas the good seeds become active and multiply and manifest as pure realms, otherwise the cause of pure realms would be absence. It is not the case where the bad seeds are eradicated, they simply become inactive. The various bhumis are the result of maturing the various good seeds and their multiplying. No result happened without a cause, and dzogchen is no exception.



krodha wrote:
According to yogācāra, not dzogchen. Dzogchen is beyond cause and effect.

asunthatneversets said:
It's all conceptual construction.



Jyoti said:
So you are saying the trikaya and four wisdoms are conceptual construction, then we can day dream and attained the trikaya and four wisdoms?

krodha wrote:
You would be day dreaming if you thought you had in fact attained them in any circumstance.

asunthatneversets said:
Dzogchen isn't a buddhist teaching, it is your true nature. The teachings are a tool which aid one in recognizing that nature, but the teachings are not dzogchen.



Jyoti said:
So you are saying Buddhist teaching is not about your true nature and therefore not the same as dzogchen?



krodha wrote:
The teachings are 'about' the true nature... dzogchen is that true nature.

asunthatneversets said:
Good and bad are relative notions which are always product of thought, in recognizing the primordial state thought is pacified and benefit is already present. Rigpa is synonymous with bodhicitta.



Jyoti said:
The recognizing is also of thought, otherwise you are talking about the body which can't be attained. Pacified thought is not the aim of knowledge. Bodhicitta shared the same means as the deluded mind, it is termed bodhicitta in the presence of the intellect, and termed the deluded mind in the presence of delusion, so it is not the same as knowledge (vidya), although knowledge is the cause of bodhicitta.



krodha wrote:
The recognition is not of thought, and nothing is attained, there is no recognizer. Relative bodhicitta shared the same means as the deluded mind perhaps. Absolute bodhicitta is rigpa.

asunthatneversets said:
there's no other reason why you would actively seek to devalue other traditions.


Jyoti said:
Saying dzogchen is in fact equalled or comparable to yogacara in term of the structure, how is this devalue other traditions?

Jyoti

krodha wrote:
Because it's not equivalent to or comparable (in most every aspect) to yogācāra in terms of structure. On the level of it's teaching, it does share some vague comparisons, but as mentioned above, the teaching isn't dzogchen. Ok it's 4:30am, luckily Rinpoche's webcast kept me awake to do this response, bedtime now, goodnight Jyoti


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 23rd, 2012 at 4:22 AM
Title: Re: Is it possible to get a religious vaccine exemption?
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
Lhugpa, ummmm... Do you really expect anyone with any critical thinking skills to take the above websites seriously?! Come onnnnn... That first link alone sounds like it was written by some paranoid 18 yr old living in his parents' basement. I mean, if you're gonna make all those outlandish and unsupported claims, at least do yourself a favor and don't make the whole piece riddled with spelling and grammatical errors.

How about something from some sort of peer reviewed journal with support and citations?

krodha wrote:
There's a good documentary out there called "The Greater Good" about vaccination dangers. Unfortunately it appears to be somewhat suppressed although some television channels like Current TV have aired it in the past. I've tried to keep an objective point of view on the issue but some of the evidence is very compelling, enough so that apart from 2 or 3 important ones, my son doesn't get vaccinations. That documentary is definitely worth checking out if you want more info.

Personally, If I was going in for a job and they wouldn't give it to me unless I injected some sh*t into my body I would respectfully decline and be on my way.

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 21st, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Six Types Of Mindfulness in Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Found this on the bhūmi's, they're innate aspects of the primordial state and though they're always presented as a hierarchical structure, because dzogchen isn't a gradual or causal vehicle they shouldn't be approached as separate levels in a structured hierarchy...

"Well, if I am really a buddha right now, are the six levels of realization present or not? They are totally, absolutely present!

'The sign of this unceasing, self-arising pristine awareness is the utter clarity of the five sense organs. This is called 'the level of light everywhere'. The absence of any form of attachment or objectification is known as 'desireless lotus'. This state of pure and total presence which does not arise and is indestructible I also call indestructible comprehension. Self-arising pristine awareness is arrayed throughout my immeasurable, true nature. This is known as 'the level of intense display'. All the phenomena which exist in the integrative structure of pure and total presence, my very self, are known as 'the level of the great wheel of letters'. Because form, communication, and awareness neither come about, nor are they destroyed. This is known as 'the level of indestructible comprehension'. Here cause and effect are not different. The phenomena which arise from mind - good and bad, acceptance and rejection - are primordially nonexistent. This I call 'the level of non-differentiation'.'

Though we can distinguish six aspects in this unity, they are not other than the singular dimension of self-arising pristine awareness. Thus we speak of 'the one level of total completeness'. 
This present awareness, from the very beginning, is without obstructions and does not stir from reality as-it-is. The individual clarity of the five sense perceptions and the individual clarity of the passions manifesting as the five pristine awarenesses are known as the play of pristine awareness. Because they are complete in themselves without having to be sought for, it is not necessary to hope or fear."

"'Light everywhere' is the eleventh bodhisattva level, 'desireless lotus' is the twelfth, 'intense display' is the thirteenth, 'the great wheel of letters' is the fourteenth, 'indestructible comprehension' is the fifteenth, and 'non-differentiation' is the sixteenth. For a detailed discussion of the ten lower stages (bhūmis) see H.V. Guenther, 'The Jewel Ornament of Liberation', (Berkeley; Shambhala 1971). The eleventh through sixteenth levels are discussed in the gsang ba'i snying po and it's many commentaries, for which see 'Matrix Of Mystery'."

- Longchenpa|Kennard Lipman|Merrill Peterson, (2000). "You Are The Eyes Of The World", Snow Lion


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 20th, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara and dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The Nyingma Dzogchen doesn't posit a two-truth dichotomy either.

Jyoti said:
Again, the two-truth itself is not dichotomy. Because there is only one body within the two-truth. The body is the ultimate truth, whereas the means of this body manifest as conventional truth. Conventional truth is none other than the dependent arising nature, the dependent arising nature is none other than object of the 7 consciousnesses.

krodha wrote:
The only dichotomy dzogchen employs is delusion and wisdom. Dependent arising is the way in which distinct things or qualities seemingly exist. Dependent arising can't be an object of the 7 consciousnesses because the 7 consciousnesses only exist on a conventional level and therefore are dependently originated themselves.

asunthatneversets said:
just because (as a teaching) it has survived within the systems of the Nyingma or Bön doesn't mean it in itself has been adulterated in any way, shape or form. That would be impossible.

Jyoti said:
The teaching has been adulterated, partly due to translation to Tibetan, and it will get worse when translated into other languages, and partly due to incorporating into the gradual vehicles, as the definitive meaning contradict the provisional meaning. That's why we need capable scholars like Mipham who can make commentaries that has a significance with respect to main stream buddhism. That's also the reason why it need to be compared against scriptures of definitive meaning especially from the chinese tripitaka as well as yogacara of chinese buddhism. It may choose to be isolated from the rest of buddhism, and being subject to further corruption due to the work of human nature, where the means to rectify will be completely absence. Or it can choose to be part of the main stream buddhism, able to criticize others, as well as being criticized if something goes wrong. The later approach is recommended, being able withstand criticism through the intellectual writings will help the teaching to stay on the right track, as well as helping others who have wrong in their tradition and teaching. If one is on the right track, there should be no fear being able to defend what is right, and opposed to what is wrong.

krodha wrote:
Since dzogchen is experiential, the truth it points to is unassailable and cannot be adulterated. Certain groups or individuals (such as yourself) may attempt to interpret dzogchen within the frame of their own structure of reasoning, and in doing so, adulterate it... but at that point it's no longer dzogchen which is being adulterated, all that is being botched is a mere intellectual translation/interpretation. You only enjoy Mipham because his exposition matches your own point of view, and therefore you continually champion his exposition in The Lions Roar. You're only looking to validate your construct of beliefs.

asunthatneversets said:
Dzogchen is the actualization of the natural state within one's experience, you either experience dzogchen or you don't, talking about dzogchen isn't dzogchen, the texts about dzogchen aren't dzogchen, these things point to it... and if you can recognize it within your own experience, then that is dzogchen.

Jyoti said:
Since everything is consciousness (nature state or experience), saying about the actualization of consciousness is not making sense. This is one example of what would be corrupting the teaching when relying on specific words as ultimate rather than relying on the meaning.

krodha wrote:
I never said everything is consciousness, the natural state isn't consciousness. The reason a term like 'consciousness' is usually avoided is because if dzogchen asserted that everything is consciousness then it would run the risk of suggesting the existence of an abiding ground of being, or substratum. Saying that everything is consciousness suggests that something has been established, which is perfectly acceptable in yogācāra, but not in dzogchen. The actualization of the natural state is the recognition of the authentic condition, that condition isn't consciousness, only the teaching you champion (Yogācāra and other eternalist views) claims that. Consciousness (as a term) is also avoided because it suggests a number of other subtleties, for example: 'one who is conscious' and/or a localized occurrence of consciousness contrasting other pockets of consciousness (as you suggest below) and so on and so forth.

asunthatneversets said:
'Awakened mind' is just another way of saying prajñā, yeshe, sherab etc...

Jyoti said:
Prajna is not subject to awakening (bodhi), it belong to the category of the body, which is existence, permanent, non-arising, uncreated, etc. Bodhi belongs to the category of the means, which is existence and non-existence, permanent and impermanent, non-arising and arising, uncreated and created, etc. As is the association of mind with 'awakened', mind as stated previously belongs to the category of the means.

krodha wrote:
'Awakened mind' is just a relative term, it isn't to be taken literally, nothing truly awakens, and there is no mind in dzogchen.

asunthatneversets said:
The delusory appearances of conventional truth are a great lie, means that the seeming persons, places, things etc... that appear to exist as a result of conceptual projection are illusory

Jyoti said:
These (persons, places, things etc.) are not the result of conceptual projection. If you rendered persons as conceptual projection for example, you basically rendered the person's body is not due to the dependent arising nature, and you also rendered the person's consciousness as non-existence. Then you suffered the consequence of having to rationalize your own consciousness as a singular reality, viz. the alaya-vijnana in others are false.

krodha wrote:
They are the result of conceptual projection. People are conceptual projections, and yes the person's body is due to dependent origination, it depends on the projected web of concepts.

asunthatneversets said:
Unwittingly believing the illusion to be truly authentic is delusion (avidyā). When delusion is recognized to be delusion, then ignorance is neutralized and wisdom remains.

Jyoti said:
In the absence of illusion (imaginary nature), one merely remained authentic with the dependent arising nature (consciousness), this is not any different than one who practice the formless and cessation meditation, since in both cases, one absorped into what remains, i.e. consciousness itself (absolute nature). Then how come the arahat and the worldly meditators who attained this is said to be not the awakening (bodhi) of buddhahood? The answer is the intellect is absence.

krodha wrote:
Only according to Yogācāra. In dzogchen there is only delusion and wisdom. You must be using the term "intellect" to represent knowledge of thusness, usually "intellect" is used to signify conceptual processes of reasoning.

asunthatneversets said:
This is referring to ignorance (avidyā).

Jyoti said:
One can visualize deity (mental image) and perceive what is not, as long as one view the deity with the intellect, it is not consider a view of delusion. Therefore, delusion has nothing to do with vision, whether of imagery or of dependent arising nature, but has to do with the absence of the intellect.

krodha wrote:
Avidyā is ignorance of the authentic condition.

asunthatneversets said:
It is certainly referring to the basis of external and internal as imaginary, because that basis is avidyā.

Jyoti said:
External and internal are also of vision, as stated above avidyā is not determine by the vision. Avidya as it literally translated as the absence of knowledge, even in the absence of external and internal vision through force of conceptual construction or in formless meditative condition, if the knowledge is absence, these formless/nondual conditions or states are not free of avidyā.

krodha wrote:
Internal and external are conceptual projections, they do not exist inherently, they have nothing to do with vision. Even vision itself is a delusional notion when it comes down to it. They are imputed constructs. Formless meditative states (as in blank voids of closed off samadhi) have nothing to do with dzogchen.

asunthatneversets said:
This is stating that the appearance of environments (external world) and life forms (sentient beings endowed with internality) only seem real due to the deceiving nature of the conceptual superstructure amassed by the intellect.

Jyoti said:
You don't called it 'intellect' in the absence of knowledge, the right word is 'delusion'. On the other hand, in the presence of intellect, what seem 'real' (deceptive) is considered the dependent arising nature, and what seems unreal (non-deceptive mental image) is considered imaginary nature, there is no confusion between the two and the latter is not considered as the conventional truth. Again what seems real and unreal, has nothing to do with the knowledge of the ultimate meaning that constitutes the ultimate truth.

krodha wrote:
Intellect is a term which is acceptable, or delusion works as well if you prefer that term. The issue seems to be that you're using the term 'intellect' to signify some type of faculty of enlightened wisdom. There are no non-deceptive mental images being that there are no mental images. As for the rest of your answer you're derailing into obfuscation as usual.

asunthatneversets said:
The rampant habitual proclivity to presuppose conventional imputation is accurately framing the nature of experience, dissimulates reality and makes it appear as that which it is not, just like misperceiving a rope to be a snake.

Jyoti said:
Like the visualization of deity, it is of imaginery nature (fake), but there is no binding if the intellect is present, viz. even affliction is bodhi in the presence of the intellect. But identify what is imaginery nature is to separate it from the dependent arising nature,  because it is due to the truth of dependent arising nature, that true bodhicitta can arise, to negate it in favour of the formless ultimate truth therefore strayed from the point of mahayana, thus the middle path.

krodha wrote:
Affliction is never bodhi. You either have one or the other and neither are ever truly established. Bodhi as a term is only implemented to signify the absence of affliction, in contrast of affliction, otherwise bodhi is simply the natural state.

asunthatneversets said:
Metaphorically, the snake is a figment of the imagination, the rope is the nature of mind (or 'thusness' as you like to say).

Jyoti said:
The imaginery nature is also thusness, as everything is mere consciousness, the body of consciousness is the thusness. But thusness does not negate the imaginary nature, as there is no requirement since the negation is not the cause of thusness. Similarly thusness has no requirement to negate the dependent arising nature, and consequently the conventional truth, since the negation is not the cause of thusness. Hence, there are the three natures, but only two inherently exist, whereas the other
imaginery exists.

krodha wrote:
Only according to Yogācāra are there natures which inherently exist, according to dzogchen, nothing exists inherently, everything is illusory.

asunthatneversets said:
So the nature of the two-truths is that the delusional appearances of avidyā have no reality whatsoever apart from delusion, they are birthed and sustained by conventional dissimulation and the authentic condition has nothing to do with these delusional appearances, nor is it truly ever effected by them (even the notion of an authentic condition is a conventional dissimulation, though the notion is warranted since it requires distinction from delusion).

Jyoti said:
Imaginary nature exist even in the state of vidya, for example in deity meditation while holding the view (vidya), and in the case of buddha, is expressed as the state of sambogakaya. Basically the buddha has no fear with regards to the three natures, as these are none other than the trikaya.

krodha wrote:
When I say "the delusional appearances of avidyā" I'm addressing how the 'imaginary nature' is related to, if the authentic condition is known, then the 'imaginary nature' is no problem, if it isn't known, then the imaginary nature wreaks havoc.... but of course there is no specific faculty called the 'imaginary nature' in dzogchen.

asunthatneversets said:
The conventional truth wasn't outright negated, but it wasn't reaffirmed either, it was considered comparable to delusion, which it is.

Jyoti said:
You compare the knowledge of the conventional truth as delusion, but conventional truth is none other than the truth of the dependent arising nature, it is the potency (means) of the body (nirvana) that manifest as the nirmanakaya.

krodha wrote:
The nirmanakaya is the unconfined, unobstructed and uninterrupted capacity and/or energetic display of the primordial state.

asunthatneversets said:
So if the intellect is the party responsible for distinguishing objects, and also responsible for the 'imaginary nature' attributed to these alleged objects... why is it not also responsible for their inception? And why is it not responsible for the notion of sensory consciousness and perception as well?

Jyoti said:
This is due to the six sensory consciousnesses are the support of the desire realm (corresponds to nirmanakaya), in their absence, the 7th consciousness can indeed function on its own, and in that case, it manifests the form realm (both internal and external). This corresponds to the sambogakaya.

krodha wrote:
Those were rhetorical questions. But if we must answer them (as you attempted to do), the correct answers are, yes, the intellect is responsible for their inception and yes, it is also responsible for the notion of sensory consciousnesses and any subsequent perceptions based on those consciousnesses. In dzogchen none of these qualities are established.

asunthatneversets said:
Are there really objects? Objects 'out there' which are gathered by sensory consciousness? Aren't these objects in fact the presence of the senses themselves? Can you truly separate an object from the modalities of tactile and visual sensation? And aren't these senses in fact the presence of consciousness itself? Can you truly separate consciousness from sensation? Sensation from objects?

Jyoti said:
Mere appearance of object both exist and non-exist, it exists as mere appearance with dependent arising nature, it non-exists as permanent appearance with essence of such characteristics. Knowledge of what exist and non-exist in term of mere appearance is the conventional truth. All objects are mere perceptions (consciousness). Sensation is also perception (consciousness).  Thus everything is consciousness and consciousness is none other than thusness. Knowledge of the conventional object in term of the body of consciousness is the ultimate truth. Thus the two truths exist, being different, yet inseparate from within the same conventional object.

krodha wrote:
Those were also rhetorical questions.

asunthatneversets said:
Objects seem to exist because one is ignorant of their true condition, if that condition is known then it is also known that no objects have ever existed (or not existed).

Jyoti said:
As stated above, conventional truth has its object exists in the mode of mere appearance and dependent arising, whereas the knowledge of the ultimate truth of object does not cause mere appearance to cease to appear, nor for dependent origination to cease while in the presence of condition, this is the reason that both truths exist without one capable of negating the other. The ultimate truth only negate the essence exists for the characteristics of appearance to be permanent, whereas conventional truth negate the ultimate truth possessing the characteristics of dependent origination, thus none of them capable of negating the truth that established each of them distinctively.

krodha wrote:
According to Yogācāra... not dzogchen.

asunthatneversets said:
you're right that initial moment of contact is free of conceptual activity... so therefore it's also free of 'objects' and likewise free of the 'senses' is it not?

Jyoti said:
There is existence of space and time that can clearly distinguished the existence of subject and object distinctions. In term of space and time, it is best by observing a supersonic aircraft, when one see the aircraft with the eye consciousness, one cannot hear with the ear consciousness the sound of the aircraft approaching, until a moment later, the reason is that the existence of space and time between the subject (consciousness) and object (consciousness) is the cause of the delay of the arriving of the sound. The differences of object (light) and the object (sound) point to a causality factor which is the dependent arising nature, the differences also point to the dependent arising nature has two division of internal and external field of experience.

krodha wrote:
Those differences point to nothing except for what you wish to extract from them. The existence of space and time are delusory notions born of conceptualization, predicated on the delusory notion of a subject-object dichotomy. Your example assumes that you as a subject are in fact observing an objective aircraft. It also assumes that the aircraft is an object which is truly apprehended by the eye consciousness and ear consciousness. You presuppose the appearance of a consecutive unfolding of moments in time to be authentic and again, also consider experience to be divided into an internal-external dichotomy. Far too many suppositions occurring, your argument and example are again irrevocably flawed.

asunthatneversets said:
Or perhaps you don't see that your habitual tendency to employ conceptual activity has become a deeply engrained perception that governs your experience. After years and years of this vicious little cycle you have formed (what are now 'subconscious') presuppositions regarding these divisions and conceptual activities. You actually believe that some of these activities are somehow inherent, or left-over when conceptualization has ceased, and you don't question them but instead try to convince others that this is true so you can feel safe and warm in your little bubble of delusion. If you would question these presuppositions, you would find that, "such is the moment where the dependent arising nature of object is established as" COMPLETELY dependent on conceptual construction. You have not taken your investigation of dependent arising all the way to the ground.

Jyoti said:
Our relative dimension of existence that correspond to nirmanakaya, possessses dependent arising nature, time and space relativity, all these are not base on conceptual construction. Whereas the blissful dimension of existence that correspond to the sambogakaya, is all about subject and object images that are pure, objects here can be imaginary and mind-only,  but in the presence of intellect, there is no binding, and due to permanence in appearances as opposed to the dependent-arising appearances, there is bliss. Thus, even by leaving dependent arising nature and engaged in conceptual construction in the presence of intellect does not bind. This is what the tantra of generation/transformation all about, what is generated is the internal and external appearance, the means of transformation is the mind (imaginary construction).

krodha wrote:
They certainly are based on conceptual construction.

asunthatneversets said:
In buddhism 'emptiness' is another word for dependent origination, and just as Nāgārjuna points out in his 60 Stanzas: "The supreme knower of reality, said that dependent production is not production."

"The wonder of it! This marvelous, astounding event/reality (Dharma):
From that which involves no origination, everything originates;
and in that very origination, there is no origination!
The wonder of it!
In it's very enduring, there is no enduring!
The wonder of it!
In it's very cessation, there is no cessation!"
- Guhyagarbha Tantra

Jyoti said:
This is not contradictory,  in the mahayana, the dependent origination is the means to communicate the dharma of permanence which is about the absolute - buddha nature. Whenever there is cessation and no cessation, or enduring and no enduring coming in pairs, it is pointing to the means, by pointing to the means, the means point to the body which has only non-cessation and enduring. Since only by the existence of the truth of non-cessation and enduring as a basis, can there be the truth in the manifestation of cessation and no cessation, or enduring and no enduring.

krodha wrote:
Any dharma of permanence is a deluded dharma. There is no quality which possesses only non-cessation, nor any which possesses only endurance. The quote above is stating that out of this apparent reality, which is unborn, appearances seemingly manifest, yet within those appearances nothing is ever truly established, there is only the timeless display of the primordial nature. Because it is beyond the four extremes, within apparent enduring there is no endurance, nothing is created or established. Within apparent cessation, there is nothing which ceases, nothing is destroyed or terminated.

asunthatneversets said:
I can agree with the former half of this (regarding the dependent arising nature), although I'm not sure if I'd derive permanence from it's ceaselessness. Also, since the phenomena in question are merely deceptive appearances they can only appear to be simultaneously impermanent/permanent, they (being empty) cannot truly posses such traits.

Jyoti said:
Phenomena or appearance is manifestation, it is not the basis or body. Only the manifestation can have the characteristic of arising and ceasing, or permanent and impermanent coming in pairs. The basis or body has to be permanent, and non-arising in order to maintain such dynamic and creative occurrences.

krodha wrote:
In dzogchen phenomena are products of delusion, if the authentic condition is known then what was previously mistaken as phenomena is known to be the luminous self-display of the basis, and the basis is uncreated. Stating that the dynamism and creativity of reality require a permanent and non-arising basis is flawed logic and nothing more than wishful thinking.

asunthatneversets said:
If Mipham did deviate from the traditional view in an attempt to create some form of coalescence between Dzogchen and Mādhyamaka

Jyoti said:
Dzogchen is actually the greater Mādhyamaka (refer to 'Self-liberation by Nakedly Awareness' by Padmasambhava). Padmasambhava is also the one who continously maintained the two truths in his dzogchen discourses to Yeshe Thogyal. So Mipham is certainly not the first to maintain the two truths and Madhyamaka in dzogchen. So by corruption it referred specifically the recent effort to dismiss the two truths and Madhyamaka (including the common mahayana) in dzogchen. Bear in mind that without these two, your tradition will be no different from the 2 yanas which also realises the same emptiness.

krodha wrote:
Padmasambhava had this to say about the two truths in Self Liberation Through Seeing With Naked Awareness:

"....Also there exist others who, being attached to their own personal ideas and interpretations,
Become fettered by these attachments and so do not perceive the Clear Light.
The Sravakas and the Pratyekabuddhas are (mentally) obscured by their attachments to subject and object.
The Madhyamikas are (mentally) obscured by their attachments to the extremes of the Two Truths.
The practitioners of the Kriya Tantra and the Yoga Tantra are (mentally) obscured by their attachments to seva-sadhana practice.
The practitioners of the Maha-yoga and the Anuyoga are (mentally) obscured by their attachments to Space and Awareness.
And with respect to the real meaning of non-duality, since they divide these (Space and Awareness) into two, they fall into deviation...."

asunthatneversets said:
Mainly the two-fold division of the "ultimate" into "non-deluded subject and non-delusory object", this is an incorrigible notion in the eyes of ati-yoga. Therefore to associate concepts such as these with the teachings of dzogchen, is to contaminate those teachings.

Jyoti said:
However, to think that the mere identification of internal and external is a concept, and such concept contaminate the teaching, then such a person already have a concept as to what to accept and reject, irrespective of the underlying truth and reason. Then such a concept is not in concordance with the way things are. The same with the means and body, without knowing the different, one misses the key point of practice as well as in analysis. For instant, thought is of the external and of the means,  whereas original wisdom is of the internal and of the body,  by knowing the site of the internal, by remaining in that, the nature is seen, this is the equavalent of direct introduction of the original face. Similarly, by knowing the external means, the internal state can be reflected externally as an object like a reflection is exactly the same as the original, an analogy of using mirror, to be generated at anytime once becoming familiar, and utilize as the reason for the function of the non-analytical intellect.

krodha wrote:
Internal and external are concepts, and while those concepts are useful, they have no authenticity beyond their place as mere concepts. Believing them to be authentic and inherent aspects of experience is delusion. The only contamination which apparently takes place is your own inability to recognize your authentic condition. Your notion of the "underlying truth and reason" is another concept which you've attached to and yes it certainly does provide you with notions of what to accept and reject, as we've all seen regularly on this forum. I do enjoy how you contradict yourself and fall victim to your own projections as your response goes along though.

Jyoti said:
The intellect being connected to the bodhi, the integration of the intellect with the exernal basis (7 consciousnesses), is the function of perfuming the seeds of bodhi, which directly lead to the progress in the bhumi. Whereas the body itself, by absorbing into that, a function is lost, like a boat being driven by the torrent, being passive it become one with the torrent.  The body beyond progress and degeneration, will remain the same whether one pretend to be with it or not, thus one does not intentionally trying to become the body, nor bother with it, but one rely only on the reflected reason that is the capacity of intellect.  But without knowing the difference of internal and external, the knowledge of means and body, even to progress and bhumi in the bodhi would be absence, such  a person only know the body, the wisdom, without knowing the means, a progress can't be made.

krodha wrote:
The point you're attempting to make is obfuscated by your use of terminology.

asunthatneversets said:
Again, Dzogchen does not uphold that an inherent division exists. Dzogchen also doesn't create a distinction between one consciousness and other consciousnesses nor does it ultimately give credence to the notion of other beings (being that it considers the duality of sentient and non-sentient to be delusory, and therefore does not purport such notions).

Jyoti said:
Dzogchen does distinguish the means and the body, example is the use of mirror's reflection to symbolize the means (vidya) of the primordial state (body). Then there is the use of deity or symbol for visualization to generate the primordial state (object), and then rely on the mental impression which is the reflected image of the original object, this mental impression is on the side of means and can be generated after becoming familiar, and so can be brought into function of the intellect. If you read Longchenpa's work, he does make commentary regarding the individual 8 consciousnesses. It is really impossible for a mahayana doctrine, especially for one claiming to be the summit of all vehicles not being equipped with such basic knowledge of buddhism It is commonly accepted knowledge that the higher vehicle cover the knowledge of the lower, but not the lower the higher. In this case, it is expected that dzogchen cover the basis of buddhism, regardless of what others say due to their motive of isolating dzogchen from the common mahayana.  Dzogchen share the same view with the common mahayana regarding the existence of beings with their own individual mind stream, regardless of the notion of Samantabadra as unique,  as Samantabadra is only regarding the individual's consciousness. Example is dzogchen accept the destruction of the world at the end of the great kalpa, where beings only left with their alaya-vijnana, with all other consciousnesses annihilated, this is clearly showing dzogchen accept individual possessing separate mind-streams (not just illusion). The notion of there being no separate mind-streams, hence no separate alaya-vijnana in beings is not acceptable in buddhism or dzogchen is due to the requirement of maintaining individual seeds of karma, if beings has no separate alaya-vijnana, then each of them has no persistent within dependent-origination.

krodha wrote:
The metaphor of the mirror is implemented to elucidate the characteristics of the primordial state, the tendency to interpret the metaphorical use of the mirror-itself as suggesting an abiding ground is a common misconception. In that metaphor it is more accurate to explore the reflective capacity of the mirror, instead of the mirror itself, otherwise we fall victim to the essentialist/eternalist views such as yours. So the mirror's reflective capacity is never tainted by the reflections themselves, much like the natural state's empty essence is ever-pure. The mirror helps to describe the natural state's primordial purity (kadag), spontaneous radiance/presence (lhundrup) and responsiveness (thugs rje).

The visualization and generation practices are not dzogchen, they are maha-yoga and anu-yoga practices. Dzogchen is only the primordial state, the anu-yoga practices may be used as supports for maintaining the dzogchen view, but they are not dzogchen any more than walking down the street is dzogchen (if one is maintaining the view). Anu-yoga practices are very useful, but they are not ati-yoga in essence, only when practiced by one who is abiding in the knowledge of ati. Samantabhadra is only representative of the primordial state, and in fact is the personification of the primordial state. Samantabhadra has nothing to do with the individuals consciousness. Dzogchen speaks of the destruction of the world at the end of the great kalpa as a metaphor, not to be taken literally, no world has ever been created or destroyed in the view of dzogchen. Dzogchen only accepts the level of the individual mind-stream as a tentative and relative appearance, which is rendered null and void apart from conventional appearance, so it is completely illusory, but a useful illusion. Individuated seeds of karma are products of delusion and are eradicated upon the actualization of the primordial state. You're reaching quite far in attempting to equate dzogchen to your view you enjoy propagating, it cannot be done.

asunthatneversets said:
The two-fold division is itself a product of conceptual construction. Mere appearances only appear to establish themselves in such a (two-fold) manner due to conforming with the initial imputed designation of two-fold division.

Jyoti said:
Unless you are saying the 8 consciousnesses are product of conceptual construction, they are not. Otherwise the four wisdoms and trikaya would be conceptual construction as well.

krodha wrote:
It's all conceptual construction.

asunthatneversets said:
Dzogchen doesn't stray into ultimate truth or relative truth, neither of these notions can contain it.

Jyoti said:
There is no buddhist teaching outside the two truths, as these are termed the truth, they are not of notion, nor can notion establish either of them.

krodha wrote:
Dzogchen isn't a buddhist teaching, it is your true nature. The teachings are a tool which aid one in recognizing that nature, but the teachings are not dzogchen.

asunthatneversets said:
It's actually another thought which determines whether a prior thought is good or bad, and that
whole process is dependent on thought (memory) itself and is therefore completely illusory.

Jyoti said:
Of course the previous is only a brief description, fuller meaning is whether the content of thought is determine by the intellect or delusion. For the former, what is beneficial for self and others is considered good, what is otherwise is considered bad. For the latter, all determination of what is good or bad would be non-definitive, and of individual opinion only.

krodha wrote:
Good and bad are relative notions which are always product of thought, in recognizing the primordial state thought is pacified and benefit is already present. Rigpa is synonymous with bodhicitta.

asunthatneversets said:
Only in Yogācāra does awakened wisdom refer to consciousness, awakened wisdom in dzogchen has nothing to do with consciousness. Thus the meanings are worlds apart.

Jyoti said:
Nothing is outside consciousness, positing an element outside consciousnesses is no longer a teaching of buddhism, some dzogchenpa even proposes an alaya separate from consciousness, there cannot be such alaya, thus there is only alaya-vijnana but no such thing as alaya. Sometime we use simplified term like body or basis to refer to the ground consciousness, in that case, alaya sometime used, but it does not imply there is such element as a body,  basis or alaya without the consciousness.

Jyoti

krodha wrote:
You're merely imputing your understanding of yogācāra onto dzogchen without knowing dzogchen. These are baseless intellectual assertions predicated on your own interests, your active engagement in downplaying dzogchen is a reflection of your own need to feel a certain way about yogācāra, more specifically your own identification with yogācāra. I don't even understand why you come and post here apart from this specific thread, you clearly have no interest in dzogchen, all you do is attempt to negate it, or compromise it by somehow twisting it to match your own eternalist/essentialist view, which it never ever will. You're welcome to post here of course, but you're only deluding yourself in your efforts to mitigate dzogchen. I can't even imagine going to another forum for the sole purpose of attempting to refute the topic there, activity of that nature screams insecurity. I'm not sure what your vendetta is with dzogchen, but perhaps your time would be better spent examining yourself, and the reasons for your diametric opposition to dzogchen (and most likely anything which isn't Chinese Yogācāra). Your campaign against dzogchen is merely an expression of your own relationship with yogācāra, there's no other reason why you would actively seek to devalue other traditions. You don't see any of us here going to yogācāra forums in order to refute it in the name of dzogchen, what value or benefit would that produce for anyone? Dzogchen isn't a belief system, or a philosophy, or an intellectual theory or ideology. You don't seem to understand that.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 14th, 2012 at 4:45 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara and dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Perhaps some facets of the Nyingma school uphold the concept of conventional truth, but we aren't discussing The Nyingma. There is another board available for that if you'd like to discuss the Nyingma's view of conventional truth.

Jyoti said:
There is no dzogchen without the discussing the nyingma's perspective of dzogchen, to posit otherwise is ignorance of the history of dzogchen, or to posit there is a pure form of dzogchen would be a mistake, because we didn't live in the time of Hevajra. The very fact of the requirement of dzogchen for direct transmission instead of preserving the teaching in the authenticity of the original scriptures, make dzogchen impossible to not be contaminated through the passing of the lineage by the opinions of different teachers. The effort of nyingma scholars like Mipham who make the dzogchen teaching stand out in writing among other Tibetan buddhist traditions contribute much to the authenticity of dzogchen as a buddhist teaching in the main stream buddhism throughout the world. However, later effort of some who attempt to isolate dzogchen from main stream buddhism will have negative impact on any such previous effort.

krodha wrote:
As for the allegations of contamination, that is an unfounded accusation and cannot be proven. Getting into that realm of discussion is merely going to produce a debate predicated on conjectured supposition which will only serve to reify (and reflect) our already established points of view, ergo deviating into historicity seems like an unproductive and trivial route to take (in my opinion). The Nyingma Dzogchen doesn't posit a two-truth dichotomy either. I did however find another quote from Longchenpa which isn't as extreme as his other statement (regarding the conventional) I cited in a prior reply in this thread:

"The two truths are not different like two horns; in the conventionally real phase, when one sees the reflection of the moon in the water, insofar as there is the reflection, this is the conventionally real; insofar as this reflection is not the moon, this is the absolutely real. The fact that both represent one fact insofar as there is the presence of the moon in the water of the well without existing there, is the indivisibility of the two truths. About the intellect that understands it in this way, it is said that it understands the two truths."
- Longchenpa (Shing rta chen po)

Dzogchen is dzogchen, just because (as a teaching) it has survived within the systems of the Nyingma or Bön doesn't mean it in itself has been adulterated in any way, shape or form. That would be impossible. Dzogchen is the actualization of the natural state within one's experience, you either experience dzogchen or you don't, talking about dzogchen isn't dzogchen, the texts about dzogchen aren't dzogchen, these things point to it... and if you can recognize it within your own experience, then that is dzogchen.

asunthatneversets said:
Dzogchen does not uphold the duality of conventional and ultimate truth but instead sees this distinction as a fallacious projection of conceptualization.

Jyoti said:
To assert conventional and ultimate truth as a duality is not having understand the meaning of the inseparability of the conventional and ultimate.

krodha wrote:
It is a subtle duality, but it has it's uses and I understand what you're saying.

"By examining relative truth, establish absolute truth;
Within absolute truth, see how relative truth arises.
Where the two truths are inseparable, beyond intellect,
is the state of simplicity."
- Dilgo Khyenste Rinpoche

asunthatneversets said:
The Dzogchen treasure text Experiencing The Enlightened Mind Of Samantabhadra states, "In the awakened mind there is no relative or ultimate truth", and this is because Dzogchen is precisely the experience of awakened mind, and not dualistic conceptual elaboration about awakened mind. Though the Great Perfection is considered to be the quintessence and heart of all paths, it does consider all other approaches apart from itself to involve supposition, which is not an authentic apprehension of wisdom.

Jyoti said:
Thusness has no different with regard to relative or ultimate, knowledge of this nondifferentiation is the 'intellect of nondifferentiation', or the 'intellect of the origin' which is non-analytical in nature, this is what the text referred to as the awakened mind. 'Awakened' correspond to bodhi, whereas mind correspond to the 6th and 7th consciousnesses, these are the sites for the function of the intellect.

krodha wrote:
'Awakened mind' is just another way of saying prajñā, yeshe, sherab etc...

asunthatneversets said:
"The delusory appearances of conventional truth are a great lie.
When everything is brought into the condition of gnosis in the vast expanse,
The subject and object in flickering awareness, like a child's dance,
Are neutralized in the state of awareness transcending intellect."
- Longchen Rabjam

Jyoti said:
'Lie' is sometime translated as deception, appearance is deceptive in the sense that it is the cause of mistaken perception. Again thusness itself has no different in terms of the all (12 entrances).

krodha wrote:
The delusory appearances of conventional truth are a great lie, means that the seeming persons, places, things etc... that appear to exist as a result of conceptual projection are illusory and therefore, yes, they are potentially deceptive. Unwittingly believing the illusion to be truly authentic is delusion (avidyā). When delusion is recognized to be delusion, then ignorance is neutralized and wisdom remains.

asunthatneversets said:
"Like mistakenly seeing a rope as a snake,
with these varied appearances
we perceive them as what they are not,

Jyoti said:
This is refering to the imaginary nature

krodha wrote:
This is referring to ignorance (avidyā).

asunthatneversets said:
giving rise to the duality of externality and internality,
i.e. the material environments and life forms therein.

Jyoti said:
This is refering to the imaginary nature within the internal and external field of perception, for example, the imaginary self and the imaginary self of others as well as the imaginary object as real substance.

Without reading the full context exist above regarding the rope analogy. This part of the sentence can easily confused as refering purely to the basis of external and internal as imaginary, the term 'externality' refer to external contents rather than merely the 'external' field of perception itself.

krodha wrote:
It's speaking of precisely the material environments and life forms therein, just as it says. Not the imaginary nature within the material environments and life forms therein. It is certainly referring to the basis of external and internal as imaginary, because that basis is avidyā. You assume the above quote is referring to external contents (rather than the external field) because you assume that perception is inherently endowed with external and internal aspects, when it isn't.

asunthatneversets said:
However, upon scrutiny only the rope itself is found - 
These environments and life forms are primordially empty,

Jyoti said:
The statement is fine as it refer to the thusness, since in term of thusness, even the dependent arising nature is thusness, and the term emptiness is refering to thusness, not an absolute emptiness in the conventional sense.

krodha wrote:
The term 'primordially empty' is being attributed to these alleged environments (externality) and life forms (internality), to say that they - since beginningless time - have never had any reality apart from the delusory facade of avidyā, which is no reality at all.

asunthatneversets said:
as the ultimate only seems to have such concrete form 
within the dissimulating process of the conventional.

Jyoti said:
This is description for mere appearance and conventional truth, thus if the emptiness in previous passage were taken as absolute in the conventional sense, then the word 'seems to have such concrete form' (equavalent to 'mere appearance') and 'conventional' (conventional truth of the dependent arising nature) would have no place.

krodha wrote:
This is stating that the appearance of environments (external world) and life forms (sentient beings endowed with internality) only seem real due to the deceiving nature of the conceptual superstructure amassed by the intellect. The rampant habitual proclivity to presuppose conventional imputation is accurately framing the nature of experience, dissimulates reality and makes it appear as that which it is not, just like misperceiving a rope to be a snake.

asunthatneversets said:
The perception of a snake is phenomenologically true in terms of our seeing it as so,
but seeing the rope instead is authentically true;

Jyoti said:
The snake is the imaginary nature, the rope is of the dependent arising nature, thus only the dependent arising nature is true.

krodha wrote:
Metaphorically, the snake is a figment of the imagination, the rope is the nature of mind (or 'thusness' as you like to say).

asunthatneversets said:
analogically, it is like the appearance of a bird on a promontory:
The nature of these two truths is that
this transitory world is merely conventional dissimulation,
which the authentic reality has no relationship to - 
In the expanse of emptiness
everything is free within it's essence."
- Garland of Precious Pearls Tantra

Jyoti said:
The analogy is refering to the truth of the imaginary nature (bird) and the truth of the dependent arising nature (promontory).  The 'nature of the two truths' refer to the truth of the dependent arising nature and the truth of the absolute nature. 'Conventional dissimulation' refering to the impermanence of the apparent phenomena contain the truth of dependent origination. 'Authentic reality has no relationship to' refer to the truth of the absolute nature has no relationship to the truth of dependent origination.

krodha wrote:
The 'nature' of these two-truths, is only referring to the character or makeup of the truths being described. You're seeing the term 'nature' and associating it with the way 'nature' is sometimes used in these texts, but in this instance the term 'nature' is simply signifying the characteristics of these two truths. So the nature of the two-truths is that the delusional appearances of avidyā have no reality whatsoever apart from delusion, they are birthed and sustained by conventional dissimulation and the authentic condition has nothing to do with these delusional appearances, nor is it truly ever effected by them (even the notion of an authentic condition is a conventional dissimulation, though the notion is warranted since it requires distinction from delusion).

Jyoti said:
In no place did this quote of Longchenpa negate the conventional truth in favour of the ultimate truth, he is just describing the thusness. While the thusness may be describe from the position of the ultimate meaning, it causes more confusion (in the absence of right interpretation) than it does to generate understanding.

krodha wrote:
This wasn't a quote by Longchen Rabjam, (his quote was the quote above this one). The quote directly above that we were just discussing is from the Garland of Precious Pearls Tantra, which is one of the 17 original dzogchen tantras. The conventional truth wasn't outright negated, but it wasn't reaffirmed either, it was considered comparable to delusion, which it is.

asunthatneversets said:
Within this schematic you're speaking of there is no sensory consciousness which exists apart from conceptual imputation.

Jyoti said:
No, the conceptual imputation is the function of the 7th consciousness. The 6 sensory consciousnesses have no such capacity. The 6 sensory consciousnesses are merely responsible for the gathering of the object of perceptions, they are able to distinguish objects but have no capacity of arising the imaginary nature based upon such object.

krodha wrote:
Well you're correct in saying that they're unable to distinguish objects, only the intellect (or 7th consciousness as you like to call it) does that. So if the intellect is the party responsible for distinguishing objects, and also responsible for the 'imaginary nature' attributed to these alleged objects... why is it not also responsible for their inception? And why is it not responsible for the notion of sensory consciousness and perception as well? Are there really objects? Objects 'out there' which are gathered by sensory consciousness? Aren't these objects in fact the presence of the senses themselves? Can you truly separate an object from the modalities of tactile and visual sensation? And aren't these senses in fact the presence of consciousness itself? Can you truly separate consciousness from sensation? Sensation from objects? I find that this cannot be done... but I commend your valiant effort to do so. Objects seem to exist because one is ignorant of their true condition, if that condition is known then it is also known that no objects have ever existed (or not existed).

asunthatneversets said:
Your notion that "the former 6 sensory consciousnesses are free of conceptual imputation" is a presupposition that is held in place due to a failure to effectively apperceive the authentic condition.

Jyoti said:
A simple method is to know why this is not a notion but a fact is to know that it take time for
conceptual activity to occur after the senses having contact with the object, so the intiatial moment of
sense contact is free of conceptual activity, such is the moment where the dependent arising nature of
object is established as not depended on conceptual construction. That's why I have suggest you read
Mipham's or other buddhist material on valid cognition before asserting what you apparently have no
knowledge about.

krodha wrote:
Yes, it certainly does appear to take a moment for conceptual activity to occur after the senses having contacted an object, and you're right that initial moment of contact is free of conceptual activity... so therefore it's also free of 'objects' and likewise free of the 'senses' is it not? Or perhaps you don't see that your habitual tendency to employ conceptual activity has become a deeply engrained perception that governs your experience. After years and years of this vicious little cycle you have formed (what are now 'subconscious') presuppositions regarding these divisions and conceptual activities. You actually believe that some of these activities are somehow inherent, or left-over when conceptualization has ceased, and you don't question them but instead try to convince others that this is true so you can feel safe and warm in your little bubble of delusion. If you would question these presuppositions, you would find that, "such is the moment where the dependent arising nature of object is established as" COMPLETELY dependent on conceptual construction. You have not taken your investigation of dependent arising all the way to the ground.

asunthatneversets said:
You say the 'body' is the absolute (a.k.a. emptiness), I don't see how emptiness can be said to be permanent, since emptiness is not a quality which can be said to retain characteristics such as permanence or impermanence. In what way does this 'body' abide? And in what way is it permanent?

Jyoti said:
As I said, in buddhism emptiness is another word for the absolute, anything of absolute exists, and such existence is permanent, viz. permanence has to do with existence, and existence with permanence.

krodha wrote:
In buddhism 'emptiness' is another word for dependent origination, and just as Nāgārjuna points out in his 60 Stanzas: "The supreme knower of reality, said that dependent production is not production."

"The wonder of it! This marvelous, astounding event/reality (Dharma):
From that which involves no origination, everything originates;
and in that very origination, there is no origination!
The wonder of it!
In it's very enduring, there is no enduring!
The wonder of it!
In it's very cessation, there is no cessation!"
- Guhyagarbha Tantra

Jyoti said:
Conversely the dependent arising nature has to do with the false/deceptive appearance, such false/deceptive appearance is impermanent and permanent, it is impermanence because appearance changes, it is permanent because of its capacity for ceaseless/permanent arising due to conditions. The body abides permanently in nirvana (ceasing/non-arising aspect).

krodha wrote:
I can agree with the former half of this (regarding the dependent arising nature), although I'm not sure if I'd derive permanence from it's ceaselessness. Also, since the phenomena in question are merely deceptive appearances they can only appear to be simultaneously impermanent/permanent, they (being empty) cannot truly posses such traits.

asunthatneversets said:
So in a cryptic way, you're stating that the intellect and emptiness are inseparable?

Jyoti said:
Emptiness is the thusness, the reason of thusness is the intellect, so thusness (emptiness) is not separated from the intellect.

krodha wrote:
According to Yogācāra of course.

asunthatneversets said:
From the text that Sönam was kind enough to share, it seems that relying on Mipham for an
accurate account of the dzogchen view in some of his writings may prove to be problematic...

Jyoti said:
So you rather believe in the opinion Jean-Luc Achard, someone who has no known authority in the
dzogchen nor having produce any philosophical commentary on dzogchen, than in the wisdom of
Mipham's philosophical thesis?

krodha wrote:
He has no known authority according to you perhaps. If Mipham did deviate from the traditional view in an attempt to create some form of coalescence between Dzogchen and Mādhyamaka then he's (by default) introducing exegetical tenets which serve to obfuscate Dzogchen. Mainly the two-fold division of the "ultimate" into "non-deluded subject and non-delusory object", this is an incorrigible notion in the eyes of ati-yoga. Therefore to associate concepts such as these with the teachings of dzogchen, is to contaminate those teachings.

asunthatneversets said:
Yes vidyā is the knowledge of the natural state (or 'thusness', as you choose to define it, though that term isn't employed in dzogchen), and the natural state has no division. Dependent arising is the way in which apparent phenomena seemingly exist, and there is no division of subject and object within dependent origination since the subject/object dichotomy is itself a rather bold example of dependent origination.

Jyoti said:
Conventional appearances always have two-fold divisions, as it is inherent division of consciousness itself, thus this inherent distinction allow one to know instinctively what is external and internal. What is external also have reality not share on the internal, such reality as the consciousnesses (mind
stream) of other beings which may only be perceive by the external senses (including divine sight of the gods), whereas the internal senses can only perceive the mind stream of one's own. This is due to the fact that the internal division is of the 8th consciousness, the rest of the sensory consciousnesses
are based on the external division. The 8th consciousness is also considered as the body of other consciousnesses, the other consciousnesses act as the means, thus all of the 7 consciousnesses are permanent and impermanent (the dynamic and creativity of the means).

krodha wrote:
Again, Dzogchen does not uphold that an inherent division exists. Dzogchen also doesn't create a distinction between one consciousness and other consciousnesses nor does it ultimately give credence to the notion of other beings (being that it considers the duality of sentient and non-sentient to be delusory, and therefore does not purport such notions).

Jyoti said:
The fact that conventional appearances is conventional, there is no need to try to eliminate the characteristics of the two-division by shear negation, since mere appearances still continue to appeared in two-fold division regardless of the conceptual construction that attempt to modify it. As conventional truth is conventional truth, ultimate truth is ultimate truth, attempting to convert the appearance of conventional truth to match the description of the ultimate truth is all proliferation.

krodha wrote:
The two-fold division is itself a product of conceptual construction. Mere appearances only appear to establish themselves in such a (two-fold) manner due to conforming with the initial imputed designation of two-fold division.

asunthatneversets said:
I believe the issue here is again the issue of the two-truths. According to the two-truths, yes, relatively there is division, though within that apparent division, no actual division is ever created. Ultimately there is no division, and within dzogchen not even the division of relative and ultimate is established, so any division posited to exist relatively is given no credence at all.

Jyoti said:
Again what is not establish as two divisions is only when speaking of the thusness. If dzogchen strayed to the ultimate truth to the exclusion of relative truth, then it strayed from the middle path, when it talks of attaining nirvana, liberation from samsara or of suffering, then it disqualified itself as a teaching of definitive meaning and consequently downgrade itself to the view of the 2 yanas.

krodha wrote:
Dzogchen doesn't stray into ultimate truth or relative truth, neither of these notions can contain it.

asunthatneversets said:
A thought is none other than thought, a notion is a thought which is seemingly directed towards (or is about) something. In it's most basic state, yes, a notion is none other than thought, but if we're going to say that then why not say that about everything? The point was to address the notion of a 'notion', in a relative sense.

Jyoti said:
Even in a relative sense, a thought itself is neutral to the position of good or bad, rather it is the content of the thought that determined whether such a thought is good or bad. Otherwise, thought would have an essence that determine it as good, and an essence that determine is as bad, etc. Since there is no such individual essence, thought itself attached to the content (matter and reason) of dhamadhatu, and according to such content, determine itself as good or bad thought.

krodha wrote:
It's actually another thought which determines whether a prior thought is good or bad, and that whole process is dependent on thought (memory) itself and is therefore completely illusory.

asunthatneversets said:
I didn't say it existed inherently, I was pointing out that, that which is dependently arisen is not inherent, and since everything is dependently arisen, nothing exists inherently.

Jyoti said:
Only the imaginary nature can be said to be not inherently exist as it is artificial constructed by mind, but those of dependently arisen nature is inherent aspect of existence. The term 'nothing exists inherently' is a gross generalisation which is only true in the ultimate sense in contrast to thusness but not in the relative sence, since mere appearance and dependent origination still continue to arise without ceasing and these are not based on imagination.

krodha wrote:
Dependently arisen phenomena are not inherent aspects of experience.

"The imputed, the dependent,
And the consummate - they have
Only one nature of their own, emptiness;
Their identities are constructed upon the mind."

"The conventional is taught to be emptiness;
The emptiness itself is the conventional;
One does not occur without the other..."
- Nāgārjuna (Bodhicittavivaraṇa)

asunthatneversets said:
You actually were making sense up until you brought up the body and means again. I'm not sure
what you're suggesting the basis of the similarity between the two is, they certainly don't share the
same basis. The basis in yogācāra is mind (or consciousness) as you choose to see it, while the basis in
dzogchen is awakened wisdom.

Jyoti said:
The basis in yogacara refered to the body (consciousness), whereas awakened wisdom, primordial
wisdom, self-existing gnosis or whatever, in dzogchen these all refer to the body (consciousness), thus
it is not different in meaning to the yogacara.  Yogacara will not rely on the body, neither is
dzogchen, as dzogchen rely on the means which is vidya, but it seems some dzogchenpa only know
the body and miss the crucial point of the means.

Jyoti

krodha wrote:
Only in Yogācāra does awakened wisdom refer to consciousness, awakened wisdom in dzogchen has nothing to do with consciousness. Thus the meanings are worlds apart.

*This discussion is growing exponentially with every reply and is getting to be almost unmanageable, I suggest we either consolidate some sections or condense it to a few key points of interest before continuing.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, September 10th, 2012 at 8:08 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara and dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Right, within your proposed model, which is flawed according to the dzogchen view. There is no
phenomena, all dharmas are products of conceptual imputation and are utterly empty.

Jyoti said:
This is ignorance and negation of the dependent-arising nature and consequently contradicting the
concept of conventional truth uphold by nyingma dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
Perhaps some facets of the Nyingma school uphold the concept of conventional truth, but we aren't discussing The Nyingma. There is another board available for that if you'd like to discuss the Nyingma's view of conventional truth. Dzogchen does not uphold the duality of conventional and ultimate truth but instead sees this distinction as a fallacious projection of conceptualization. The Dzogchen treasure text Experiencing The Enlightened Mind Of Samantabhadra states, "In the awakened mind there is no relative or ultimate truth", and this is because Dzogchen is precisely the experience of awakened mind, and not dualistic conceptual elaboration about awakened mind. Though the Great Perfection is considered to be the quintessence and heart of all paths, it does consider all other approaches apart from itself to involve supposition, which is not an authentic apprehension of wisdom.

"The delusory appearances of conventional truth are a great lie.
When everything is brought into the condition of gnosis in the vast expanse,
The subject and object in flickering awareness, like a child's dance,
Are neutralized in the state of awareness transcending intellect."
- Longchen Rabjam

-------------------

"Like mistakenly seeing a rope as a snake,
with these varied appearances
we perceive them as what they are not,
giving rise to the duality of externality and internality,
i.e. the material environments and life forms therein.

However, upon scrutiny only the rope itself is found - 
These environments and life forms are primordially empty,
as the ultimate only seems to have such concrete form 
within the dissimulating process of the conventional.

The perception of a snake is phenomenologically true in terms of our seeing it as so,
but seeing the rope instead is authentically true;
analogically, it is like the appearance of a bird on a promontory:
The nature of these two truths is that
this transitory world is merely conventional dissimulation,
which the authentic reality has no relationship to - 
In the expanse of emptiness
everything is free within it's essence."
- Garland of Precious Pearls Tantra


asunthatneversets said:
Likewise consciousness is also utterly empty. Consciousness and it's alleged contents are inseparable,
experience is timeless and lacks a center, borders, edges or divisions, and that being the case both sides
of that equation (consciousness / contents) are simply products of conceptual imputation.

Jyoti said:
You seems to define the consciousness within the characteristic of the 7th consciousness, where the
imaginery nature is sustained by conceptual imputation. However, it is clear that the former 6 sensory
consciousnesses are free of conceptual imputation. Thus, the perception of object prior to moment of
conceptual activity is considered direct perception of the conventional validating cognition. This is
prove of external object of phenomena is not due to conceptual imputation.

krodha wrote:
Within this schematic you're speaking of there is no sensory consciousness which exists apart from conceptual imputation. Your notion that "the former 6 sensory consciousnesses are free of conceptual imputation" is a presupposition that is held in place due to a failure to effectively apperceive the authentic condition. Again, there is no internal or external apart from relative conceptualization, nor objects. Conceptualization is the culprit in this predicament, but it is also the only means of communication, so it is a double edged sword in that respect. We implement language to convey descriptions, ideas, instructions to one another and this is a useful tool, but we fall into a subtle trap when we start to actually believe that language is describing pre-existent elements of experience, instead of actually creating them. This is something that needs to be recognized within your own experience, it cannot be understood intellectually, so I don't expect you to accept this fact, but I hope that it becomes evident in time.

asunthatneversets said:
Again there are no sides. And the authentic condition transcends permanence, impermanence, both
and neither. The same goes for existence. There is no permanence to be found anywhere, the
permanence or true existence you are speaking of is an illusion which is product of delusion.

Jyoti said:
This is only refering to the means only,  but the body is permanent.

krodha wrote:
You say the 'body' is the absolute (a.k.a. emptiness), I don't see how emptiness can be said to be permanent, since emptiness is not a quality which can be said to retain characteristics such as permanence or impermanence. In what way does this 'body' abide? And in what way is it permanent?

asunthatneversets said:
Nowhere in experience has there ever once been a sense faculty present (or absent). Sense organs,
sense faculties, sense fields etc... are equivalent to horns on a hare and/or hair on a tortoise. The same
goes for internal and external. You can insist on the presence of these dualities as much as you like,
but doing so is nothing more than clinging to affliction. (The same goes for me denying the presence
of these dualities, but I'm merely doing so in the name of this discussion to make a point).

Jyoti said:
This is attempt to negate the means in favour of the characteristic of the body, the fact is the means
and body is inseparable.

krodha wrote:
So in a cryptic way, you're stating that the intellect and emptiness are inseparable?

asunthatneversets said:
You can believe that if you'd like, but it is a grievous error to do so, and a definite deviation from the
authentic view. There is no inherent aspect of consciousness, being that consciousness itself isan empty
notion.

Jyoti said:
This is contradictory to what Mipham says regarding the existence of ultimate subject and ultimate
object.

krodha wrote:
From the text that Sönam was kind enough to share, it seems that relying on Mipham for an accurate account of the dzogchen view in some of his writings may prove to be problematic...

Sönam wrote:

"(out of a bad translation of mine, from French ... but the sense should not be affected)

'It is fascinating to notice that in the rNying ma pa tradition of the Great Perfection (rDzogs chen), the majority of topics to be interpreted, to understand regarding oral transmission's norms (snyan brgyud) founded upon an Awawakening experience pure from all corruption, was already fixed in a very early date and that almost all following interpretations given by exegete from this school never brought something new, or few. Excepted, perhaps, 'Ju Mi pham rgya mysho (1846-1912) who tried  a philosophical connection with Madhyamaka tradition, denaturing in that way the original principes of rDzogs chen. To speak about denaturation or else of adulteration of a tradition can certainly sound shocking in a 'correct ecumenisme' context, but it's clear for purists that the Great Perfection's mind cannot be reduced to sutra or tantra's conceptions.'
- Jean-Luc Achard - La base et ses sept interprétations dans la tradition rDzogs chen"

asunthatneversets said:
The absence of ignorance is vidyā, and I can assure you there is no division to be found in vidyā. Your
reliance on the intellect as your vessel to access your true nature is a poisoned seed which will never
germinate.

Jyoti said:
Vidya is knowledge of the thusness,  thusness itself has no division, but the dependent arising nature
has a division of subject and object reality, and both reality is inseparable from thusness. Thus your
word regarding the division of thusness, show that you don't know what you are talking about.

krodha wrote:
Yes vidyā is the knowledge of the natural state (or 'thusness', as you choose to define it, though that term isn't employed in dzogchen), and the natural state has no division. Dependent arising is the way in which apparent phenomena seemingly exist, and there is no division of subject and object within dependent origination since the subject/object dichotomy is itself a rather bold example of dependent origination. I believe the issue here is again the issue of the two-truths. According to the two-truths, yes, relatively there is division, though within that apparent division, no actual division is ever created. Ultimately there is no division, and within dzogchen not even the division of relative and ultimate is established, so any division posited to exist relatively is given no credence at all.

asunthatneversets said:
In dzogchen no consciousness has ever been established, so building outside of consciousness would be
an impossible endeavor. In regards to your notion of division, again, there is no division.

Jyoti said:
In other words, you are trying to be superior to Mipham by opposing his thesis.

krodha wrote:
I've made no mention of Mipham in the above statement, nor have I asserted anything close to what you're suggesting. I could play the same game with you by making a brash statement such as "In other words, you are trying to be superior to (insert dzogchen master of choice) by opposing his thesis", but I don't find that to be an effective response or anything which would resemble a productive addition to this discussion.

asunthatneversets said:
You may want to find another translation for the cited text because it already lacks sound
grammatical continuity just in reading it plainly, so I'm not sure what other errors may be present. If
you want to read Mipham, I suggest "A Lamp That Dispels Darkness", it is an exemplary exposition
on the dzogchen view.

Jyoti said:
I never based my understanding on any text on mere words, your opinion is just saying that you are
emphasizing on the words and not on the meaning.

krodha wrote:
I'd hope neither of us would leave our understandings based on mere words. As for my lack of emphasis on the meaning of the quote you provided, I found it to be incongruent with the dzogchen view, and again this seems to be an issue which has stemmed from Mipham's exegetical denaturation that Sönam pointed out.

asunthatneversets said:
I challenge you to provide an example of a neutral notion.

Jyoti said:
A notion is none other than thought. For example I can arise the thought of no-thought (the reason
of thusness), and enter the state of no-thought, then from the state of no-thought, I can arise the
thought again, will my first and last thought have a non-neutral position?

krodha wrote:
A thought is none other than thought, a notion is a thought which is seemingly directed towards (or is about) something. In it's most basic state, yes, a notion is none other than thought, but if we're going to say that then why not say that about everything? The point was to address the notion of a 'notion', in a relative sense.

asunthatneversets said:
The imaginary is also dependently arisen. Nothing exists inherently.

Jyoti said:
No, the imaginary nature does not exists inherently, that is why is it termed imaginary nature.

krodha wrote:
I didn't say it existed inherently, I was pointing out that, that which is dependently arisen is not inherent, and since everything is dependently arisen, nothing exists inherently.

asunthatneversets said:
It's your opinion that it is the definitive dharma of course. I see no practical application for these notions apart from reifying ignorance which obscures, obstructs and obfuscates.

Jyoti said:
So you are saying dzogchen is not a definitive dharma?

krodha wrote:
Dzogchen is simply your true nature. I was saying that the conceptual structure you've amassed with all of these apparent divisions and dualities has no practical application apart from reifying itself, and thus it obscures, obstructs and obfuscates the authentic condition. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have any redeeming value, we all have to walk our own paths and like someone else was saying, I commend your affinity for the dharma and your willingness to engage in these discussions.

asunthatneversets said:
I see. Essence in dzogchen refers to either one aspect of the trifold nature of mind (essence, nature and compassion), the essence being emptiness, the nature being clarity/luminosity. Or it refers to svabhāva.

Jyoti said:
Essence is none other than nature, nature is none other than essence, compassion/capacity is the means of essence/nature. Essence and nature, or nature and compassion versus body and means are precisely the basis of the similarity of yogacara and dzogchen.

Jyoti

krodha wrote:
You actually were making sense up until you brought up the body and means again. I'm not sure what you're suggesting the basis of the similarity between the two is, they certainly don't share the same basis. The basis in yogācāra is mind (or consciousness) as you choose to see it, while the basis in dzogchen is awakened wisdom.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 9th, 2012 at 3:33 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara and dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
There is no content of consciousness. Consciousness isn't a container. There is nothing beyond the appearances.

Jyoti said:
Contents here refer to the phenomena (dharma) in that stream of consciousness.

krodha wrote:
Right, within your proposed model, which is flawed according to the dzogchen view. There is no phenomena, all dharmas are products of conceptual imputation and are utterly empty. Likewise consciousness is also utterly empty. Consciousness and it's alleged contents are inseparable, experience is timeless and lacks a center, borders, edges or divisions, and that being the case both sides of that equation (consciousness / contents) are simply products of conceptual imputation.


asunthatneversets said:
What is it that you consider the absolute to be? And how are you defining 'emptiness'? Where are
you finding permanence and true existence?

Jyoti said:
The side of the body is the absolute.
'Emptiness' is another term for the absolute (body).
On the side of the body, one finds permanence and true existence.

krodha wrote:
Again there are no sides. And the authentic condition transcends permanence, impermanence, both and neither. The same goes for existence. There is no permanence to be found anywhere, the permanence or true existence you are speaking of is an illusion which is product of delusion.


asunthatneversets said:
The sense faculties are imputed notions of ignorance. As are both internal and external.

Jyoti said:
No, the sense faculties are neutral of any imputed notions of ignorance, the same for the all (internal
and external.

krodha wrote:
Nowhere in experience has there ever once been a sense faculty present (or absent). Sense organs, sense faculties, sense fields etc... are equivalent to horns on a hare and/or hair on a tortoise. The same goes for internal and external. You can insist on the presence of these dualities as much as you like, but doing so is nothing more than clinging to affliction. (The same goes for me denying the presence of these dualities, but I'm merely doing so in the name of this discussion to make a point).


asunthatneversets said:
Consciousness doesn't perceive any objects of form, being that objects of form are also products of
imputation and ignorance.

Jyoti said:
Consciousness is that which perceived in two divisions (subject and object), these two divisions
(including the various forms) of perception are the inherent aspect of consciousness which are not
cause by imputation and ignorance. Therefore, in the absence of imputation and ignorance, the two
divisions remained as the two-fold manifestation of consciousness.

krodha wrote:
You can believe that if you'd like, but it is a grievous error to do so, and a definite deviation from the authentic view. There is no inherent aspect of consciousness, being that consciousness itself isan empty notion. The absence of ignorance is vidyā, and I can assure you there is no division to be found in vidyā. Your reliance on the intellect as your vessel to access your true nature is a poisoned seed which will never germinate.


asunthatneversets said:
However you are correct in stating that a subject must be present in order for objects to be seemingly
perceived. Dzogchen's dividing line isn't clear because there's no such thing as a dividing line outside
of imputed ignorance, and being that no dividing line is truly established within imputed ignorance,
there is no dividing line. Truly, in dzogchen there isn't even 'no dividing line', because such a
conclusion would require the initial presence of a dividing line to negate in the first place.

Jyoti said:
The dzogchen system does not build outside consciousness, therefore it is subject to the same principle
of consciousness, i.e. subject to its two-fold divisions, even though it is not clearly stated, the
distinction exist.

You may need to study Mipham's The Lion’s Roar Proclaiming Extrinsic Emptiness:

"the ultimate has both a nondeluded subject and a nondelusory object, because what exists there
cannot be invalidated (gnod pa) by a valid cognition that proves otherwise, because it is what is
proven after the reasoning establishing emptiness has already been applied, and because in
establishing it according to conventional validating cognition, no one in this world, including the
gods, can dispute it in accordance with the Dharma. "

krodha wrote:
In dzogchen no consciousness has ever been established, so building outside of consciousness would be an impossible endeavor. In regards to your notion of division, again, there is no division. You may want to find another translation for the cited text because it already lacks sound grammatical continuity just in reading it plainly, so I'm not sure what other errors may be present. If you want to read Mipham, I suggest "A Lamp That Dispels Darkness", it is an exemplary exposition on the dzogchen view.


asunthatneversets said:
How can a notion be neutral? A notion needs to be "about" something. One can only have a notion
in relation to a person, place, thing, idea etc.

Jyoti said:
Notion itself is neutral, but when it is derived from the basis of delusion or intellect, then it is of
delusion or intellect.

krodha wrote:
I challenge you to provide an example of a neutral notion.


asunthatneversets said:
and I suppose one could argue that conceptualization is itself a mere appearance if it's left in it's
suchness

Jyoti said:
Thought or conceptualization is not the dependent arisen nature, if a mental image is maintained by
thought, it is of the imaginary nature, hence does not inherently exist. Though thusness exists in both
natures.



krodha wrote:
The imaginary is also dependently arisen. Nothing exists inherently.


asunthatneversets said:
Define 'means', I'm not sure what you're referring to with the term 'means'?

Jyoti said:
In the definitive dharma and yogacara of the chinese buddhism, the means refer to the function of the body. It is not skillful means, provisional meaning, gradual means and so on, rather it is the capacity that is inherent, in the same way as the two-fold manifestation of consciousness is inherent.

krodha wrote:
It's your opinion that it is the definitive dharma of course. I see no practical application for these notions apart from reifying ignorance which obscures, obstructs and obfuscates.


asunthatneversets said:
I take it by 'essence' you mean svabhāva? I define thusness/suchness the same as mere appearance.

Jyoti said:
Essence here refered to the body (thusness), mere appearance (dependent arisen nature) is the means of the body, not the body itself.

Jyoti

krodha wrote:
I see. Essence in dzogchen refers to either one aspect of the trifold nature of mind (essence, nature and compassion), the essence being emptiness, the nature being clarity/luminosity. Or it refers to svabhāva.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 8th, 2012 at 6:37 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara and dzogchen
Content:
viniketa said:
Thank you for your note, MalaBeads.  Education doesn't necessarily imply wisdom, so I am always trying to find new ways to 'see' things.

This discussion on the Four Reliances has given some new light.   Joyti's words about of 'the wisdom of the body' may be a little strange, but it sure has me looking at things from a new perspective.  The 'wisdom of the body' is the wisdom of the trained athlete.  Sometimes in English it is called 'muscle memory'.  Rather than trying to intellectually 'triangulate' their way through a physical task that requires concentration, highly trained athletes (including yogis) will tell you to let go of thought and let your body remember what to do.  And it works.  The wisdom of the body, separate from conceptual thinking about 'how to', is a form of 'direct perception'.

krodha wrote:
I'm fairly certain that when Jyoti's speaking of 'the body' she's using the term 'body' to represent consciousness or some other quality of that nature. So a phrase like 'wisdom of the body' isn't really speaking of ones physical body. The use of words like 'body' to mean whatever it is she's referencing is certainly confusing. Especially when others are using 'body' in it's traditional sense to represent one's body, it just creates a mess. At least 'reality-body' or something of that nature would help to distinguish what's being spoken of. Jyoti you could just say 'consciousness' (or whatever the appropriate label would be) and get your points across much more clearly! Something to consider...


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 8th, 2012 at 12:37 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara and dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
he inherent nature of phenomena is "absolute" and "dependently arisen"? A dichotomous separation
of experience into internal and external is certainly a notion which is product of imputation. Where
are you finding an internal field of perception? Or an external? Where is the dividing line between
these two fields?
There are no internal or external fields.
Again I'm not seeing where you're locating external phenomena, the only thing that makes phenomena seem external is the erroneous identification with the body (which is ultimately an imputation itself) and the notion that there are internal facets of experience which exist within the body.

Jyoti said:
The 6 external sense faculties only perceived external phenomena, whereas the 6 internal sense
faculties only perceived the internal phenomena, thus the dividing line between internal and external
is the sense bases. Also in order for consciousness to perceive an object of form, the existence of the
subject is required, with the exception of the formless realms, but even in the condition of
formlessness, the dividing line still exist in the form of means and body. Without understanding the dividing line, there is no possibility to apprehend the dharma of definitive meaning. The dzogchen's dividing line of the two is not clear, this is the major cause of many errors and contraditions in various texts and words of teachers.

krodha wrote:
The sense faculties are imputed notions of ignorance. As are both internal and external. Consciousness doesn't perceive any objects of form, being that objects of form are also products of imputation and ignorance. However you are correct in stating that a subject must be present in order for objects to be seemingly perceived. Dzogchen's dividing line isn't clear because there's no such thing as a dividing line outside of imputed ignorance, and being that no dividing line is truly established within imputed ignorance, there is no dividing line. Truly, in dzogchen there isn't even 'no dividing line', because such a conclusion would require the initial presence of a dividing line to negate in the first place.

asunthatneversets said:
The only things that obscure pure perception are all of these notions which are imputed onto experience.

Jyoti said:
Notion itself is neutral, it is the mistaken notion of appearance itself.

krodha wrote:
How can a notion be neutral? A notion needs to be "about" something. One can only have a notion in relation to a person, place, thing, idea etc.

asunthatneversets said:
Mere appearance (which is simply neutral experience devoid of imputed conceptual overlay) is precisely thusness. Or are you defining 'thusness' as non-dual perception?

Jyoti said:
Mere appearance is not thusness, mere appearance is a derived knowledge of dharmas due to the presence of the intellect, that is the knowledge of appearance as devoid of essence, and arise based on causes and conditions. Thusness is non-definable by words, but may be realized within the wisdom (prajna) of the consciousness (body). Unlike the intellect (jnana) of the means which is derived from the reason of thusness, this wisdom is so called because of the body containing the reason of thusness.


Jyoti

krodha wrote:
Mere appearance is simply the ceaseless and continual presence of phenomena in the immediacy, prior to conceptualization (and I suppose one could argue that conceptualization is itself a mere appearance if it's left in it's suchness). Define 'means', I'm not sure what you're referring to with the term 'means'? I take it by 'essence' you mean svabhāva? I define thusness/suchness the same as mere appearance, but to each their own.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 7th, 2012 at 11:56 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara and dzogchen
Content:
Jyoti said:
The absolute does not dependent upon the relative (dependently arisen nature).  Because their natures are not two, both absolute nature and dependently arisen nature are from the same stream of consciousness, absolute nature is the essence of the contents of this consciousness, whereas the dependently arisen nature is the appearance of the contents of this consciousness.

krodha wrote:
There is no content of consciousness. Consciousness isn't a container. There is nothing beyond the appearances.


Jyoti said:
The relative is the dependently arisen nature, this nature is not based on ignorance, that is why it is termed dependently arisen.

krodha wrote:
Dependent arising is the nature of all appearance.

asunthatneversets said:
The dependently arisen nature, emptiness, should negate the imaginary and absolute, along with itself.

Jyoti said:
Then you have two absolutes, i.e. emptiness and the absolute, this is duality. Such absolute cannot negates the absolute due to permanence and true existence of both.

Jyoti

krodha wrote:
What is it that you consider the absolute to be? And how are you defining 'emptiness'? Where are you finding permanence and true existence?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 7th, 2012 at 2:06 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara and dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
In dzogchen, ignorance is the basis for all phenomena (dharmas), the notion of a personal self
(ātman) falls under that umbrella.

Jyoti said:
Ignorance is not the basis of all phenomena,  because in its absence the 2 of the 3 natures still
inherently exists. Igorance is cause of the existence of the imaginary nature of phenomena. The 3
natures are: absolute nature, imaginary nature and dependently arisen nature.

krodha wrote:
I take it you're implying that the absolute nature and dependently arisen nature still inherently exist? And that the imaginary nature is the nature which is absent when ignorance is absent?

How can the absolute nature be inherently existent? Isn't the absolute dependent upon the relative? If the relative is merely a product of ignorance, upon the removal of the relative the absolute would likewise be negated. We can't have a one sided coin. The dependently arisen nature, emptiness, should negate the imaginary and absolute, along with itself.

asunthatneversets said:
realizing the emptiness of mind

Jyoti said:
This is not what I have stated in the thesis,  the thesis merely attempt to explain the meaning of
'realizing the emptiness of mind'. I did not indicate there is such a mind in the thesis, consciousness
is not mind.

krodha wrote:
Ok.

asunthatneversets said:
and that the notion of a dichotomy is an imputation of mind in the first place

Jyoti said:
This is not a notion, nor an inputation of mind, for these 2 only refer to the imaginary nature. The
two-fold manifestation of consciousness is the inherent nature of phenomena (i.e. the other 2
natures).  The root consciousness (alayavijana) manifested itself as the internal field of perception
which also pervades the 7 consciousnesses, the 7 consciousnesses that it manifested constitutes the
bases for the external field of perception.

krodha wrote:
The inherent nature of phenomena is "absolute" and "dependently arisen"? A dichotomous separation of experience into internal and external is certainly a notion which is product of imputation. Where are you finding an internal field of perception? Or an external? Where is the dividing line between these two fields?

asunthatneversets said:
The realization of anātman should lead to the realization of śūnyatā since both sides of the
dichotomy are dependent on one another

Jyoti said:
Atman is only the internal field of the imaginary nature,  you still have the external field of the
imaginary nature that will obscured pure perception of the external field of the inherent nature
(absolute nature, and dependently arisen nature), viz. the knowledge of mere appearance and thusness
of external phenomena.

krodha wrote:
There are no internal or external fields. The only things that obscure pure perception are all of these notions which are imputed onto experience. Mere appearance (which is simply neutral experience devoid of imputed conceptual overlay) is precisely thusness. Or are you defining 'thusness' as non-dual perception? Again I'm not seeing where you're locating external phenomena, the only thing that makes phenomena seem external is the erroneous identification with the body (which is ultimately an imputation itself) and the notion that there are internal facets of experience which exist within the body.

asunthatneversets said:
the empty aspect of the nature of mind is meant to cover this two-fold emptiness from the very beginning through recognizing primordial purity.

Jyoti said:
The yogacara covered this in one word 'thusness'.

krodha wrote:
The dzogchen doesn't cover this in any words. But if you had to choose one, 'emptiness' would do the job.

asunthatneversets said:
The difference is that within dzogchen nothing is established, which contrasts the Yogācāra view that everything is mind.

Jyoti said:
The yogacara view all phenomena as mere consciousness, not mind. May be you are referring to Tibetan version of the yogacara, I don't relied on that version.

Jyoti

krodha wrote:
Perhaps. I would have to read what the differences are in the yogācāra traditions. At any rate, both phenomena and consciousness (and/or the union or separation of the two) are considered empty in dzogchen.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, September 7th, 2012 at 10:47 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara and dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Distinction Between The Buddha-Essence Of Dzogpa Chenpo And Of Yogācāra:

"In Dzogpa Chenpo the Intrinsic Awareness is designated as self-awareness and self-clarity. But it is free from elaborations and non-existence. So it is superior to the thoroughly established self-awareness and self-clarity of consciousness of the Yogācārya school. Longchen Rabjam explains:

Jyoti said:
By comparing the designation of 'Intrinsic Awareness' of Dzogpa Chenpo with the designation of consciousness of the Yogācārya school and then rendered the former as superior is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that Yogācārya does not rely on consciousness but the intellect.

krodha wrote:
Doesn't rely on consciousness but the intellect? You probably would've been better off stating that it relies on consciousness, as far as these teachings go - in the schematic that could potentially unfold between 'relying on consciousness' and 'relying on the intellect' - I'd say (solely) relying on the intellect would be a downgrade from simply relying on consciousness. Dzogchen doesn't rely on either.

asunthatneversets said:
In it (Dzogpa Chenpo) the essence (Ngo-Bo) of Intrinsic Awareness, the realization of the non-existence of the apprehended and apprehender, is called spontaneously arisen primordial wisdom. But Dzogpa Chenpo doesn't assert it as self-awareness and self-clarity (Rang-Rig Rang-gSal) as Yogācārya, the Mind Only School, does. Because (according to Dzogpa Chenpo), as there is no existence of internal and external, it (Intrinsic Awareness) is not established as internal mind. As there is no self and others, it isn't established as self-awareness. As the apprehended and apprehender have never existed, freedom from the two is not established. As it is not an object of experiences and awareness, the experience is not established as non-dual.

Jyoti said:
Refer to my thesis below on the two emptinesses, it is not established there is a different between apprehended and apprehender (subject and object).

<<Both the subjective and objective perception are just the two-fold manifestation of consciousness. The subjective perception is the basis for atman, whereas the objective perception is the basis for all phenomena (dharmas), both the atman and dharmas does not exist in reality, only the thusness of consciousness is true. The subjective field of perception corresponds to the inner six sensory entrances, whereas the objective field of perception corresponds to the outer six sensory entrances, therefore the twelve entrances are none other than consciousness. The emptiness conventionally speaking is the consciousness, ultimately speaking it is the thusness. So the twelve entrances are none other than thusness, subject and object have no difference. This is the meaning of the terms as stated above: ' realising the emptiness of mind is realising the emptiness of all things', 'awareness without abiding on any referential point', 'whether one sees the emptiness of self or any phenomenon, the result is the same wisdom.'>>

Jyoti

krodha wrote:
That's your own thesis? That's all well and good but your thesis is only validating the statement that longchenpa made above. Dzogchen doesn't implement a subject(ive)-object(ive) dichotomy but instead finds the two to be empty from the very beginning. In dzogchen, ignorance is the basis for all phenomena (dharmas), the notion of a personal self (ātman) falls under that umbrella.

And this isn't regarding dzogchen but in reference to your thesis: realizing the emptiness of mind should in theory cause one to realize of the emptiness of all things, like you stated, but this isn't always the case, hence the two-fold emptiness (anattā/anātman & śūnyatā). The realization of anātman should lead to the realization of śūnyatā since both sides of the dichotomy are dependent on one another (and that the notion of a dichotomy is an imputation of mind in the first place), but depending on the amount of karmic traces one is afflicted with there is sometimes a gap in those insights.

In dzogchen, the empty aspect of the nature of mind is meant to cover this two-fold emptiness from the very beginning through recognizing primordial purity. Within that primordial purity nothing has ever been established which is later revoked, so phenomena is not "cut with the razor of emptiness" as Jigme Lingpa says, but is inherently empty.

The difference is that within dzogchen nothing is established, which contrasts the Yogācāra view that everything is mind.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 6th, 2012 at 1:31 PM
Title: Re: Yogacara and dzogchen
Content:
Jyoti said:
The two truths are inseparable, due to only one is true (1), the other false (0) (1+0=1, 1=inseparable/nondual), there are two truths because the imaginary (means) is support of dependent-origination, whereas the ultimate truth is the body. The same formula applied to samsara (0) and nirvana (1).

Jyoti

krodha wrote:
"...In the same section of Yeshe Lama, Jigme Lingpa further refines the definition of the position that is the subject of his critique; it is the statement that mind is existent in relative truth (kun rdzob kyi bden pa) and nonexistent in ultimate truth (don dam pa'i bden pa). This combines the doctrine of mind-only with the two truths of the Madhyamaka. Jigme Lingpa argues that in such a system, even the idea of union (zung 'jug) - that is, of the two truths - is actually the union of two existents (yod pa gnyis). The object of the critique, indicated in the text only with the phrase 'elsewhere' or 'according to others (gzhan du)', seems to be one or more contemporary traditions. Jigme Lingpa has no qualms about naming the Yogācāra school directly when he is criticizing it's doctrines; as is usual in Tibetan polemic writing, it is living writers or traditions that he does not name directly."
- Sam Van Shaik (Approaching The Great Perfection, pg. 79)

Jyoti said:
The inexpressible is the equavalent of the thusness in yogacara. 'Cognition of self-awareness' is a term foreign to yogacara and to Buddhism in general, maybe Longchenpa refered to the Tibetan version of yogacara, in that case, this has no relevant to the yogacara of chinese buddhism which is based on the scriptures of definitive meaning.

krodha wrote:
'Cognition of self-awareness' = self-reflexive awareness (or simply 'reflexive awareness'), it certainly isn't foreign to yogācāra and dzogchen, nor is it foreign to buddhism in general.

"There is another aspect of the Yogācāra doctrine, related to the mind-only doctrine, that is criticized in Yeshe Lama and elsewhere in Jigme Lingpa's work: the concepts of reflexive awareness (rang rig) and reflexive luminosity (rang gsal). These terms near-synonyms, are fundamental of the Yogācāra understanding of the way the mind works. They refer to the activity of a mind that does not cognize phenomena as extrinsic: it is cognizant only of itself, and, like a lamp that needs no other light source to be visible, it illuminates itself. Both terms were utilized in this way by Śāntarakṣita in his eighth-century works setting out the Yogācāra Svātantrika Madhyamaka position. 

Jigme Lingpa writes in Yeshe Lama, 'If...when you examine that which abides, the mere reflexive luminosity (rang gsal) of the ālāyavijñāna comes up as truly accomplished, then you approach the mistake of the Anākāravāda mind-only doctrine.' We have seen above how the Sākāravāda form of Yogācāra is criticized by Longchenpa and Jigme Lingpa, based on the distinction between mere perceptions and the objective basis for perceptions. The Anākāravāda form of Yogācāra, which did not accept the ultimate reality of consciousness as the objective basis for perceptions, is criticized for a different reason. In his Khyenste Melong, Jigme Lingpa sets out what he understands the Anākāravāda position to be: 

'We hold that the outer object does not exist, and the awareness that apprehends it does not exist either. The awareness that realizes the apprehender and apprehended as nondual is a reflexive awareness and a reflexive luminosity. This is designated as truly existent. This is the ālāya-vijñāna. Actions and their result are based on it.'

The Anākāravāda position is criticized for attributing reflexive awareness with true existence. The terms reflexive awareness and reflexive luminosity are often used in the Great Perfection, and figure frequently in the Longchen Nyingtig texts themselves. Jigme Lingpa cannot criticize the use of the terms themselves. He must object to the designation of them being truly established, that is, existent. As the passage from Khyenste Melong suggests, this is also a criticism of the position that holds the ālāya-vijñāna, the basis of consciousness, as the basis of both samsaric and nirvanic awareness. For Jigme Lingpa, and his Seminal Heart sources, the ālāya-vijñāna is samsaric in nature, a result of delusion and separation from the ground, as I have shown in chapter 4. Thus these criticisms of the Yogācāra are rooted in the Seminal Heart distinction between two types of basis, the nirvanic basis known as the ground (gzhi) and the samsaric basis of consciousness, the ālaya (kun gzhi). Because the distinction is not made in the Indian Yogācāra texts, the versions of reflexive awareness and reflexive luminosity found there are considered flawed. Yet the Seminal Heart owed a great debt to Yogācāra philosophy in it's treatments of both samsaric and nirvanic awareness, and this is why Jigme Lingpa, like Longchenpa before him, felt the need to strongly distinguish the differences between the models of awareness in Yogācāra and Seminal Heart literature."
- Sam Van Shaik (Approaching The Great Perfection, pg. 84)


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 6th, 2012 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara and Dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
"...So it is superior to the thoroughly established self-awareness and self-clarity of consciousness of the Yogācārya school...."

"...Otherwise, if you take the meaning of the words literally, you will never find (in Dzogpa Chenpo) any difference from the cognition of self-awareness, self-clarity, and non-duality of apprehender and apprehended of the Mind Only School...."

- Longchen Rabjam (excerpt from "The Practice Of Dzogchen" pg. 103[/i]

Lhug-Pa said:
Also on the Mind-Only school:

The Precious Treasury of Philosophical Systems by Longchen Rabjam

And:

Bönpo Dzogchen Teachings by Lopon Tenzin Namdak Rinpoche

krodha wrote:
And Approaching The Great Perfection by Jigme Lingpa/Sam Van Schaik has an excellent section on the contrasts between the two


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, September 6th, 2012 at 4:47 AM
Title: Re: Yogacara and dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
Distinction Between The Buddha-Essence Of Dzogpa Chenpo And Of Yogācāra:

"In Dzogpa Chenpo the Intrinsic Awareness is designated as self-awareness and self-clarity. But it is free from elaborations and non-existence. So it is superior to the thoroughly established self-awareness and self-clarity of consciousness of the Yogācārya school. Longchen Rabjam explains:

In it (Dzogpa Chenpo) the essence (Ngo-Bo) of Intrinsic Awareness, the realization of the non-existence of the apprehended and apprehender, is called spontaneously arisen primordial wisdom. But Dzogpa Chenpo doesn't assert it as self-awareness and self-clarity (Rang-Rig Rang-gSal) as Yogācārya, the Mind Only School, does. Because (according to Dzogpa Chenpo), as there is no existence of internal and external, it (Intrinsic Awareness) is not established as internal mind. As there is no self and others, it isn't established as self-awareness. As the apprehended and apprehender have never existed, freedom from the two is not established. As it is not an object of experiences and awareness, the experience is not established as non-dual. 

As there is no mind and mental events, it does not exist as self-mind. As it does not exist as clarity or non-clarity, it is not established as self-clarity. As it transcends awareness and non-awareness, there are not even the imputations of awareness. This is called the Dzogpa Chenpo, free from extremes. Although it is designated as self-arisen primordial wisdom, enlightened mind, ultimate body, the great spontaneously accomplished ultimate sphere, and the naked self-clarity Intrinsic Awareness, these ascriptions are merely in order to signify it. It should be realized that the self-essence (of Dzogpa Chenpo) is inexpressible. Otherwise, if you take the meaning of the words literally, you will never find (in Dzogpa Chenpo) any difference from the cognition of self-awareness, self-clarity, and non-duality of apprehender and apprehended of the Mind Only School."
- Longchen Rabjam (excerpt from "The Practice Of Dzogchen" pg. 103


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, September 5th, 2012 at 1:22 PM
Title: Re: Which Of The 17 Dzogchen Tantras Have Been Published?
Content:
krodha wrote:
In 3 separate places I've found 3 different deities being referenced to as the black wrathful goddess in the "Black Wrathful Goddess Tantra"...

In the OP I copied the run-down of the 17 Tantras from a website which listed the Black Wrathful Goddess Tantra (nag mo khros ma); as referring to a black form of Vajrayogini (khros ma nag mo).

In another more in depth run-down I found done by Khenpo Ngakchung it lists this tantra as the Tantra of The Wrathful Black Guardian Shri Ekajati, which resembles a sharp razor, describes how to protect the practitioner against harms inflicted by others. Obviously referencing Ekajati.

And then on Vajranatha's website he has this as referencing Simhamukha: The secret sadhana (gsang sgrub) is for the exceedingly wrathful black Krodha Kali Simhamukha (khros-ma nga-mo), "the wrathful black goddess", who appears to annihilate the delusion of ego, symbolized by the insatiable demon king Rudra, much like Durga cutting the head off the demon king Mahisha. The secret sadhana is also connected with the practice of Chod (gcod), the severing or cutting off of the ego. For this reason, this form of Simhamukha is also called Vajra Nairatma (rDo-rje bdag-med-ma), “she who destroys the notion of an ego.”

Which deity is actually being discussed in this tantra?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, September 4th, 2012 at 1:58 PM
Title: Re: Females who achieved rainbow body
Content:
humanpreta said:
C'mon Pero, It's all in good fun and harmless. DW is a sausage party. Jyoti is a big girl and can take it--she's out of control and can use a some straight settin. A little levity ain't ever killed nobody. Come on old boy ....you dig?

Buddhists often suppress their ids. Mine's probably too lose...what can I say? That's what happens when I see a pretty image. Don't mean to offend no one.

krodha wrote:
It's all in good fun and harmless if everyone is on the same page, but singling out a member of the opposite sex with some sort of half cocked cat call on a forum such as this, is hardly a demonstration of everyone having harmless fun. It has nothing to do with suppressing ids, but understanding the right circumstances in which to express behavior of that nature, a bar, club, spring break cancun 2012, stumbling down the street drunk at 2:10am... those may be acceptable settings depending on the circumstances. There's an appropriate time and a place, this is neither.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, September 2nd, 2012 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Females who achieved rainbow body
Content:
magnagei said:
Is ordinary dying when the son wisdom recognizes the mother wisdom?

krodha wrote:
Ordinary death just means a natural death, like most every being... but supposedly at the moment of death it's easier for the son to recognize the mother, so for those who had difficulty doing so in life, that moment is a excellent opportunity for this to occur.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, September 1st, 2012 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Most Sacred Pilgrimage Site in Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Rewalsar Lake and it's surrounding caves


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 31st, 2012 at 4:11 AM
Title: New Film "The Apparition" BasedOn Tulpa Phenomena/Experiment
Content:



krodha wrote:
New film titled "The Apparition" which is out in theatres now is (loosely) based on Tulpa (thought-form) phenomena. Prior to filming, Warner Bros. hired paranormal investigator Joshua P. Warren to actually experiment with the notion and create a tulpa.

Summary of a radio show interview with Joshua:
"...paranormal investigator Joshua P. Warren finally revealed details about the groundbreaking experiment he was hired by Warner Brothers to conduct to 'create a ghost.' He was joined in the first hour by Todd Lincoln, writer/director of Warner Brothers' new horror movie, 'The Apparition'. Lincoln said his new film is inspired by experiments conducted in the 1970s by researchers who suggested that paranormal events happen because people believe in them. The group created a fictional back story for a man named Phillip and focused on manifesting him solely through the power of the mind, he explained. Strange things occurred which terrified the researchers and the experiment was halted, Lincoln added. In The Apparition a similar experiment summons an inhuman entity that gains its power from belief and fear, he noted.

Warren reported on his own attempt at creating a ghost using a lab setup, pointing out that "this actually worked." Components of the original Phillip experiment were combined with technology that amplified brain waves, he disclosed. The subject was asked to focus on a tiki doll and her thoughts were broadcast through equipment that magnified them into the equivalent of thousands of people thinking the same thing, Warren continued. Eventually, a huge harmonic-type field built up which damaged the equipment and ended the experiment, he recalled. According to Warren, seven days later he began to hear scratching sounds in the walls and saw a distorted human-shaped shadow walk down his staircase. In addition, objects were found inexplicably strewn about, the electrical system in Warren's building melted down, and other tenants claimed to have seen a shadowy being, he said. The implications to understand the nature of ghosts and the relationship between mind and environment are startling, Warren said."
Link to audio interview: http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/08/17

Images from Warren's lab set-up:


From Wikipedia (For those not familiar with Tulpas):
Tulpa (Wylie: sprul-pa; Sanskrit: निर्मित nirmita and निर्माण nirmāṇa; "to build" or "to construct") is an upaya concept in Tibetan Buddhism and Bon, discipline and teaching tool. The term was first rendered into English as 'Thoughtform' by Evans-Wentz (1954: p. 29):
"In as much as the mind creates the world of appearances, it can create any particular object desired. The process consists of giving palpable being to a visualization, in very much the same manner as an architect gives concrete expression in three dimensions to his abstract concepts after first having given them expression in the two-dimensions of his blue-print. The Tibetans call the One Mind's concretized visualization the Khorva (Hkhorva), equivalent to the Sanskrit Sangsara; that of an incarnate deity, like the Dalai or Tashi Lama, they call a Tul-ku (Sprul-sku), and that of a magician a Tul-pa (Sprul-pa), meaning a magically produced illusion or creation. A master of yoga can dissolve a Tul-pa as readily as he can create it; and his own illusory human body, or Tul-ku, he can likewise dissolve, and thus outwit Death. Sometimes, by means of this magic, one human form can be amalgamated with another, as in the instance of the wife of Marpa, guru of Milarepa, who ended her life by incorporating herself in the body of Marpa."

John Myrdhin Reynolds (1996: p. 350) in a note to his English translation of the life story of Garab Dorje defines a tulpa thus:
"A Nirmita (sprul-pa) is an emanation or a manifestation. A Buddha or other realized being is able to project many such Nirmitas simultaneously in an infinite variety of forms."

Thoughtform may be understood as a 'psychospiritual' complex of mind, energy or consciousness manifested either consciously or unconsciously, by a sentient being or in concert. In the Dzogchen view, accomplished thoughtform of the kye rim mode are sentient beings as they have a consciousness field or mindstream confluence in a dynamic of entrainment-secession and organization-entropy of emergent factors or from the mindstream intentionality of progenitor(s). Thoughtform may be benevolent, malevolent or of complex alignment and may be understood as a "spontaneous or intentional manifestation" or "emergence" (Tibetan: rang byung) of the 'Five Pure Lights' (Tibetan: 'od lnga). The Five Pure Lights may be understood as the "radiance" (Tibetan: 'od) or Clear Light (Tibetan: 'od gsal) substrate of 'mindstream' (Tibetan: sems rgyud) and the base or root 'dimensionality of all dharmas' (Sanskrit: dharmadhatu) of Nirvana and Samsara. The mindstream is an entwining or confluence of the 'Eight Consciousnesses' (Tibetan: rnam shes tshogs brgyad). Therefore, the Five Pure Lights are the 'root' (Tibetan: gzhi) of the Western scientific conceptions of matter and energy. From the Dzogchen perspective energy is nondual to 'spiritual energy' or 'vital force' (Tibetan: rlung). For the human species, defined in Traditional Tibetan medicine as the class of entities which holds a human la (Tibetan: bla), the Five Lung are direct homologues of the Five Pure Lights.

Professor H. H. Price, an Oxford philosopher and parapsychologist, held that once an idea has been formed, it "is no longer wholly under the control of the consciousness which gave it birth" but may operate independently on the minds of other people or on physical objects. It is contended that a meme is not a thoughtform, unless it is sentient. Though, memetic theory may be deemed an informative correlation to thoughtform phenomena.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulpa


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 27th, 2012 at 3:10 PM
Title: Re: becoming a wandering yogi?
Content:
Jyoti said:
RikudouSennin, looking at your age and economic situation, I would recommend you find a part time job while continue your academic study. You will regret when you are older and find yourself without any qualification needed to work in society. Forget about retreat or dzogchen (for a while) since these are beyond your means, if you are serious about dharma, the scriptures are free at any buddhist libraries (this is where I have used to study to gain the knowledge of dharma).

krodha wrote:
Bullshit.

Rikudou, follow your heart and seize the day, don't wait for anything! Not even the next minute is guaranteed. Your strong interest and affinity for the teachings means you're ready. Never pass up an opportunity to learn/practice the dharma. And dzogchen is beyond no ones means, it is your authentic condition, always has been and always will be. It is innate and cannot be lost or acquired, you only need to recognize it.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 27th, 2012 at 12:24 PM
Title: Re: Dorje Drolo and Dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
What role does Tsogyel Drollo (Vajra Mamo Tsogyel Trollo) have in reference to Dorje Drollo? Or in terms of practice? I only see info on her available from the Aro lineage when I do a search on the web... don't hear about her often if at all.
http://aroencyclopaedia.org/shared/text/t/tsogyel_trollo_dr_01_01_full_eng.php
http://www.aroencyclopaedia.org/shared/text/t/tsogyel_trollo_dr_01_02_close_eng.php

username said:
He & his mandala of followers & donors & those with positive karmic inclination towards him, some of whom but not all practice this plus other things of his, said in private it is not his mere "experience" but his actual "terma" & now after years of consistent denials, which also turned out to be untrue in the end, some of them are coming out &  saying it publicly, ie: he is a terton. Personally I don't think so. It is getting out of hand as expected but these things have a well defined cycle.

krodha wrote:
Interesting. That guy seems to be shrouded in controversy.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 27th, 2012 at 3:04 AM
Title: Re: Dorje Drolo and Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
What role does Tsogyel Drollo (Vajra Mamo Tsogyel Trollo) have in reference to Dorje Drollo? Or in terms of practice? I only see info on her available from the Aro lineage when I do a search on the web... don't hear about her often if at all.
http://aroencyclopaedia.org/shared/text/t/tsogyel_trollo_dr_01_01_full_eng.php
http://www.aroencyclopaedia.org/shared/text/t/tsogyel_trollo_dr_01_02_close_eng.php


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 25th, 2012 at 6:30 AM
Title: Re: Dorje Drolo and Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
He's one of the wrathful manifestations of Padmasambhava. Along with Guru Dragphur. (Which is why he's closely associated with the teaching).


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, August 23rd, 2012 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Atomic/Rainbow Body
Content:



Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012 at 6:49 AM
Title: Six Types Of Mindfulness in Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche briefly mentions in his book Rainbow Painting (pg. 120) six types of mindfulness within the dzogchen tradition specifically:

"...Often there is mention of several types of mindfulness: deliberate mindfulness, effortless mindfulness, dharmatā mindfulness, wisdom mindfulness, all-pervasive mindfulness and so forth. These latter terms lay out in great detail the differences between the seven impure and the three pure bhumis. Of course we could delve into this terminology intellectually, but that is not so beneficial at this time. The different stages have to be related to our personal experience. 

The dzogchen tradition describes six types of mindfulness. Other systems mention only two: deliberate and effortless. The first type is called mindfulness of deliberate attention. The second type is called innate mindfulness. The dzogchen tradition phrases it this way: 'Sustain primordially free awareness with innate mindfulness.' There is no transformation involved here at all. It is the original state of awareness that is sustained by natural mindfulness. The ultimate is 'all-pervasive mindfulness' in which there is no distraction whatsoever. Awareness reaches as far as space reaches. It is unbroken and without interruption. Day and night, there is only all-encompassing awareness. All distraction has vanished into the state of dharmatā. This is the dharmakāya of all buddhas...."

He mentions that they lay out in great detail differences in relation to the bhumis, and I'd assume compare and contrast the differences between themselves, although that is merely a guess. I was curious to know where more information might be available on these six aspects of mindfulness? Or where these six aspects of mindfulness are originally discussed in reference to the tantras or termas etc. I realize that very rarely are hierarchical degrees or stages mentioned in reference to dzogchen, and for good reason, but these peaked my interest and I figured I'd see if anyone else knew anything about them.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 20th, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Title: Re: masters of the tradition
Content:
RikudouSennin said:
well in that case im curious as to the meaning thoughts arise from emptiness?

Lately it has appeared to me that the objective world is a projection of mind or thoughts,like this laptop began as a tought in a persons mind etc but now here it is manifest before my eyes.
i think im on the right track here,im not trying to cram it all in at once just get familiar with the nature of reality etc from a dzogchen pov

krodha wrote:
The fact that it's believed to be an objective 'thing' existing separate from you, is indeed a product of conceptualization. So imputation of thought does play a role on that level (a rather large role), but not in the sense you proposed though. It's much more immediate than the process you posited. Conditioning and habitual tendencies are what maintain it.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 18th, 2012 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Milarepa -- too lazy to practise Dzogchen or no results?
Content:
Sherlock said:
There are two different versions of Milarepa's story about receiving Dzogchen teachings, in one he just slacks off because he hears about how rapid Dzogchen is and in the other he practises diligently without results until his teacher sends him away. Which is the older one?

krodha wrote:
Is there links to both versions online? I have the book "The Life Of Milarepa" not sure which version is in there though I'll have to look...


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, August 18th, 2012 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: masters of the tradition
Content:
RikudouSennin said:
wow i did not know that, there is alot i need to learn but im glad to be alive at the time of this great master and have the chance to connect with him.

im sure there will be many hardships but im happy to have discovered what ive been looking for,i just need to hold onto this enthusiasim for the ret of my life.

also afer i attend the WWT and join the DC will i be considered a disciple of Rinpoche?
i know he has thousands of disciples,how do i go about having a personal relationship with CNNR?obviously to meet him in person is the goal but even then wont it be a huge amount of people trying to meet him at the same time.

krodha wrote:
He travels almost constantly doing retreats so if you put the effort in to be mindful of his schedule I'm sure you'd be able to attend one. As for really establishing a personal relationship though, he would want you to focus on the true guru which is your own natural state. After direct introduction his method of guru yoga is his primary practice he gives to help maintain that connection. Although he would be your teacher, it's not so much about being a disciple of him specifically as in focusing on idolizing his physical form, because that actually serves to maintain a dualistic view. Rinpoche, being the embodiment of primordial perfection would want you to focus on your own primordial perfection which is inseparable from the recognition he abides in. Being able to lay that subject-object approach aside is vital to this teaching, though relatively it's perfectly fine to consider him the teacher and you a student.

It definitely makes me happy to see you excited about the teaching that is a beautiful thing!


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 17th, 2012 at 4:22 PM
Title: Re: masters of the tradition
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Jyoti no offense, but where are you learning this stuff and why is it being presented as dzogchen? You said you received transmission from ChNN I recall... And these certainly aren't his teachings, I'm just curious. I guess specifically what's the source of these notions and is that source presenting them as dzogchen? Or are you taking other teachings and applying it to what it appears dzogchen is stating and presenting your own take?

Jyoti said:
As a person who studied both so it is not difficult to know the similarities. The source all contained in the chinese mahayana tripitaka, the chinese words as stated are the key to decipher the meaning from the scriptures related to this topic, you need to rely only the definitive scriptures. Having a prior knowledge of dzogchen and ch'an helps a lot in the deciphering of the meaning in the scriptures.

krodha wrote:
I can't even bring myself to follow up on these responses, the other thread where you were correcting Tsele Natsok Rangdrol pretty much set the tone. Quite presumptuous. I'm sure you mean well but you're doing more harm than good answering questions here.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 17th, 2012 at 9:03 AM
Title: Re: masters of the tradition
Content:
krodha wrote:
Jyoti no offense, but where are you learning this stuff and why is it being presented as dzogchen? You said you received transmission from ChNN I recall... And these certainly aren't his teachings, I'm just curious. I guess specifically what's the source of these notions and is that source presenting them as dzogchen? Or are you taking other teachings and applying it to what it appears dzogchen is stating and presenting your own take?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 17th, 2012 at 8:56 AM
Title: Re: masters of the tradition
Content:



RikudouSennin said:
Am i correct in assuming the dzogchen state is not a type of nirvikalpa samadhi or samadhi state or transcendental state but our natural state of non dual awareness? so its not like some divine state where your lost to the world in meditation correct?

krodha wrote:
Perhaps closer to Sahaja Samadhi if anything, but i couldn't say definitively being that my knowledge of sahaja and it's attributed is limited, definitely not a void absorption like nirvikalpa though.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 14th, 2012 at 2:35 PM
Title: Re: Dreaming of Ekajati
Content:
krodha wrote:
I dreamt of Ekajati two nights ago... In the same dream ended up assembling some altar with a wood block carving of her that hung on the front of some mini stupa thing too... We partied.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 13th, 2012 at 2:08 PM
Title: Re: buddhahood that reverts to the basis
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
True,

"You might now ask, 'why wouldn't confusion reoccur as before, after the spontaneous presence dissolved back into primordial purity and one was liberated through naturally cognizing the manner of the spontaneously present ground-appearance manifesting from the ground?' This is because no basis exists for it's re-arising. Samantabhadra's liberation into the ground itelf and the yogi liberated through practicing the path are both devoid of any basis for reverting back to becoming a cause, just like a person who has recovered from a plague or the fruit of the se tree (a particular tree which is poisonous to touch, causing blisters and swelling. Once recovered, one is then immune). Other than these two cases, all sentient beings became confused when the ground-appearance of spontaneous presence manifested from the original ground of primordial purity and they failed to recognize that manifestation to be their own self-display."
- Tsele Natsok Rangdrol


Jyoti said:
In response to the quote, the status of buddha is actually dynamic versus being static, the word 're-awakening' is used to describe this dynamic. When a process is being repeated, it become a cycle, a cycle is permanent, this permanence revealed the true body which is the dharmakaya. Just like samsara is impermanent, but being a continuous revolving cycle reveal the permanence of its true body which is nirvana.

However, without the mechanism that support the process, the circle that form the re-awakening dynamic will not form, that mechanism is not make up of permanent element, but of causal components, such as the mental factors and transformation of consciousnesses. When the right cause is present, all these components start to function as directed, and the awakening dynamic begin to form, this is termed bodhi, it is a functioning component, a form of means, not to be confused as the body which is static and beyond cause (beyond the possibility of doing anything with regard to awakening or delusion).

krodha wrote:
While these threads concerning the basis do tend to get somewhat abstract, I'm having difficulty deciphering what you're attempting to say. The terminology you're using is causing this to appear somewhat obfuscated, which is making the point you're attempting to make unclear (at least to me). I actually can't even tell if you're validating the quote and this is a commentary of sorts, or if you're refuting it and this is your own view.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, August 13th, 2012 at 5:21 AM
Title: Re: buddhahood that reverts to the basis
Content:
Nighthawk said:
As pointed out by Malcolm many times there are two types of buddhahood in dzogchen. One that reverts back to the basis and one that does not, the one that does not revert back can never fall back into sentient being hood. That buddhahood can said to be permanent such as the buddhahood of Padmasambhava, Milarepa etc.

krodha wrote:
True,

"You might now ask, 'why wouldn't confusion reoccur as before, after the spontaneous presence dissolved back into primordial purity and one was liberated through naturally cognizing the manner of the spontaneously present ground-appearance manifesting from the ground?' This is because no basis exists for it's re-arising. Samantabhadra's liberation into the ground itelf and the yogi liberated through practicing the path are both devoid of any basis for reverting back to becoming a cause, just like a person who has recovered from a plague or the fruit of the se tree (a particular tree which is poisonous to touch, causing blisters and swelling. Once recovered, one is then immune). Other than these two cases, all sentient beings became confused when the ground-appearance of spontaneous presence manifested from the original ground of primordial purity and they failed to recognize that manifestation to be their own self-display."
- Tsele Natsok Rangdrol


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 10th, 2012 at 11:34 PM
Title: Re: Capacity for following Dzogchen
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
: Andrew108 and Heart, please don't take it personally. My intention is not to criticise anybody but bring what I consider to be a problem into focus.

krodha wrote:
Actually seems like Andrew108 and Heart are saying close to the same thing, just in different ways, I can see the points they're both trying to make. It's just that this subject can appear contradictory due to the nature of the topic but all in all valid points are being made on both accounts IMO.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 10th, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Title: Re: Capacity for following Dzogchen
Content:
heart said:
....But no matter how we recognize the natural state our condition is still a very strong habit of delusion, anyone that pay some attention to their own mind will know this. This is why we practice, we need to let habitual delusion dissolve and gain confidence in the spontaneously present natural state....

/magnus

krodha wrote:
I agree. I actually was just exchanging posts in a fb forum today with our old buddy ol' pal Jax about this same topic (which is like beating my head against a wall) regarding the presence of traces of delusion, which he still erroneously maintains is essentially nonexistent on any level. This is a bit of what I wrote in a response...

There are latent perceptions which have been engrained and imposed onto experience via habitual conditioning. Only in rare cases does merely recognizing stillness (which is merely non-conceptual awareness and not rigpa) resolve these assumptive notions. 

Due to apparent presence of these latent karmic propensities clarity is defiled and diminished in it's appearance.

Your "beingness" (a term I personally avoid in most cases) is defiled until one's true nature is authentically recognized, in that authentic recognition blatant (debilitating and governing) ignorance is cleared away. However, although the blatant apparition of ignorance is diminished in that first instance, latent traces still remain which will continue to afflict the full presencing of one's nature. By resting in that knowledge (the certainty revealed in the initial recognition) those latent traces of ignorance will slowly burn away, and when no trace remains the fullness of the dharmakāya will reveal itself to be all pervading. Only in rare cases does the first initial recognition remain irreversible, in most cases it must be cultivated and nurtured.

"The common site is termed the foundation of straying,
and since it becomes polluted with dimmed awareness the knowable itself appears to be stained.

Since memory-based thought activity manifests within the ordinary mind,
the "essence" is polluted by the conceptual flow.

Since the six facets of the psyche unceasingly grasp and fixate,
the reality body itself is fettered as well by it's dualistic grasping at objects.

Since it becomes involved with partless atomic particles,
radiant light itself comes to be dormant.

Since the objectifications deriving from the four conditions are impure,
presences themselves manifest in pluralized (and fragmented) fashion."
- Pearl Garland Tantra | mu tig phreng ba'i rgyud

So I agree, though ignorance is ultimately illusory it's apparent presence is enough to maintain itself. Cutting through the habitual tendencies which maintain the all-ground ain't no walk in the park for most of us, and if you find that it is, you're either be in the top tier of gifted capacities or you're deluding yourself. Integration is important, and don't get me wrong I'm not advocating a causal practice, but the initial effort needed to maintain the view once one's state is authentically recognized.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, August 7th, 2012 at 3:06 AM
Title: Re: Death contemplation for recognizing the state of rigpa?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
True, same point I was attempting to make more or less, one shouldn't get all high and mighty off gaining a little insight and believe they've resolved all traces of ignorance, some traces are very subtle and unless some level definitive realization has been attained those karmic propensities still remain. I was just making the point that the subtle attachments to the body notion are some deeply held (or deeply latent) propensities.

Andrew108 said:
I always like reading your posts. They are always informative. I wonder sometimes if the idea of achieving realization is somewhat false, as too is the idea that one already has realization? Perhaps we can discuss this idea further in another thread?

krodha wrote:
Probably both true and false in both cases depending on how you look at it, yeah probably a good topic for another thread since it'd be going off topic a bit. Would be an interesting thread though I'm sure


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 5th, 2012 at 10:07 AM
Title: Re: Death contemplation for recognizing the state of rigpa?
Content:
treehuggingoctopus said:
Would DI be enough? No lung required?

Pero said:
Yup.

asunthatneversets said:
Much like that Shri Singha quote Pero(I believe) has in his signature, where he addresses being presented with death and giving oneself up. Those "bonds" are important to investigate.

Pero said:
If you mean this quote by Shri Singha (posting it since I will be changing my sig now): If you think, 'I will have no karmic ripening even if I engage in the ten unvirtuous acts,' you should be able to accept the ten unvirtuous acts of others directed towards you—even if it might result in your death. Can you do that?

It's really about not getting delusional about our supposed realizations but that's more clear when read in context - The Treasure Of The Lotus Crystal Cave in Treasures From Juniper Ridge.

krodha wrote:
True, same point I was attempting to make more or less, one shouldn't get all high and mighty off gaining a little insight and believe they've resolved all traces of ignorance, some traces are very subtle and unless some level definitive realization has been attained those karmic propensities still remain. I was just making the point that the subtle attachments to the body notion are some deeply held (or deeply latent) propensities.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, August 5th, 2012 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Death contemplation for recognizing the state of rigpa?
Content:
Inge said:
I wonder if the kind of contemplation where one imagines ones own death, the decomposition of the body until only bones are left, then bones turns to dust, and then finally even the dust vanish, could be considered also a method for recognizing the state of rigpa through the experience of emptiness?

krodha wrote:
Some chod practices resemble visualizations like this, except during the practice after consciousness is ejected from the head (and is separated from the body below), one rests in equipoise and then visualizes oneself as the black troma nagmo dakini. As the black mother one envisions her dismembering your abandoned body, cutting off the head etc and assembling the pieces as a mandala offering for all the enlightened beings to come. Once the guests arrive the black dakini then prepares a feast with the body for the hordes of guests, there's lots of different recipes, in one the head is cut off and used as a container to stew the rest of the body, filleted skin is used as the tablecloth or for covering the ground etc. The body's prepared various ways for the large banquet of guests and then is devoured ravenously.

"Gesturing with the curved knife in her right hand [the dakini]
flays the skin which covers the ground.
Upon that the body's bloody flesh mass is chopped open 
and becomes mountains of flesh to eat,
oceans of blood to drink,
rock piles of bone to gnaw,
hills of fat and grease to lick,
long bones and gristle to suck,
a space treasury of desirables,
veritable pleasure itself!"

Overcoming those subtle attachments to the notion of body is really important, they're extremely subtle and deeply engrained. Much like that Shri Singha quote Pero(I believe) has in his signature, where he addresses being presented with death and giving oneself up. Those "bonds" are important to investigate.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, August 3rd, 2012 at 3:14 AM
Title: Re: Mind emptiness and matter
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,

Thanks untill now, for your contribution / replies.

Very interesting and correct seen like in Dzogchen or how Dzogchen can deal with this matter / objects.
That is no doubt about it, it is the best interpretation.

But in case we see the gradual approach here or the emancipation(s), a certain knowledge is maintained like the outer objects are true. I agree fully what is true cannot be true for someone else,  what is mediicine for someone else is poison for the other person etc.

So to make the matter understandable different kinds of philosophy is "invented".

krodha wrote:
Even from the ultimate perspective, that ultimate can only exist in relation to the relative, so when dealing in the relative condition and relating to others, all views are ok, just because one sees through the illusion doesn't mean the illusion is to be denied. So relatively all of these things appear, but they're understood to be merely conventions.

kalden yungdrung said:
Objects and attachment to them, the result is everywhere seen as NOT so ok.
Objects in Bon Dzogchen or general Dzoghen are not there. Here we have the point which cannot be known to other Traditions. Not to speak about Thogal.........

But if we deal with illsusion it is at the moment very clear that when my mom is too long in the sun she will have a red painfull skin. So i must buy some oil (out of compassion) to get the pain lessened / reduced.

So to tell my mom that it is in fact illusion etc. that is of no use to her at that moment and also other moments.

krodha wrote:
True, relatively there are other beings who are functioning on the relative level, and due to their perceptions being deluded they're subject to the conditions their minds create in their experiences.

"...since those who understand the empty nature of their bodies still feel pain when touched by fire or water or when struck by arrows, speaks, clubs, and so forth. The answer to this is the fact that as long as you have not arrived at the state of basic space in which phenomena resolve within their true nature (chho-nyid-zad-pai ying), dualistic appearances do not subside, and as long as they have not subsided, beneficial and harmful appearances occur without interruption. In actuality, though, even the fires of hell do not burn."
- Dudjom Lingpa

kalden yungdrung said:
Maybe it is and it is not like i did suggested in Jnana's post would be here the best position which is for everybody understandable. Here is not meant per se the defending of the ultimate truth contra the relative one.

So i came IMO to the conclusion that a stone and the sun do exist in this collective karma called human being and his/her/ its world. Exceptions cannot be defended by the other party to the nihilsts, they will never or seldom agree to for instance a Dzogchen view not to speak about a Yidam etc.

krodha wrote:
I would say the best position is to attempt to point one in the direction of being able to access that ultimate state first hand of course, but then in daily life of course it's best to not firmly hold to one certain position, we must be compassionate for other's views because it's all relative. One's primordial state isn't a view to be held but an actuality to experience, it can be spoken of and discussed. But in discussing it one must be mindful that as soon as one translates that experience into an intellectual understanding and then presents it to others as if it's exclusively true, others, (having no basis to validate your words in experience) merely take it as an idea the same as any other theory. And if they're attached to their own intellectual notions, by insisting your view is absolute, potential for contention and conflict arises. So it's best to respect all views in my opinion, and then through one's own practice seek to benefit others. And if there's an opportunity to speak about the view in an environment that's conducive to it, (where everyone is interested and sharing the same aspirations - like here in this forum for example) then it's ok to speak freely about it (within reason, and respecting others still of course).

kalden yungdrung said:
What i do prefer? Like mentioned earlier the Dzogchen View but cannot defend that to others mostly. Can be it among them, that is no problem but cannot argue with them about matter and ego and living after death.

So we do communicate mostly, seen in the mood of Dzogchenpas, in the common karma called human, but not conflicting our NS. So for others is that a confirmation of their view (like nihilistic view) somehow if one does not argue about the essential things in life............

Better stop here because i feel i am repeating or a wheel is turning.


Mutsug Marro
KY

krodha wrote:
I suppose if they take it as a confirmation of their view then it's a confirmation. Doesn't mean it truly is though, it's just a relative interpretation based on the reference point they attach to, and that's their own limitation to recognize and work on I suppose.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, August 1st, 2012 at 2:03 PM
Title: Re: Mind emptiness and matter
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,

......In Dzogchen everything seems to be of mind only quality without object or subjest but objects like the sun is still shining. So the material universe or matter, like Rahula did mentioned and explained has somehow a structure without mind but that structure is once created by mind at a certain point.


Thanks in advance for your efforts to make it more clear

Mutsug Marro
KY

krodha wrote:
Both mind and objects are empty by nature. Objects are merely misconceptions, nothing more than empty projections which seemingly originate via imputation yet are in truth unfounded. Primordial wisdom mistakenly perceives it's own display as a fragmented subject-object dichotomy and due this failure to recognize itself an illusory substratum is formed which becomes the basis for the afflicted personal consciousness. This polluted basis (all-ground) is the ignorance which maintains samsaric perception. Though it may appear to, in truth nothing is received or reflected, what appears to be sensory phenomena is merely the minds own luminous display. When this is recognized it becomes wisdom. Ultimately all appearances are unsubstantiated and illusory. There's no outside or inside. No mind and no matter, all of these designations are imputed misnomers and though they may appear to be real when one is deluded, they are completely illusory.

In dzogchen what appears to be a universe etc is the empty display of primordial wisdom, when this isn't recognized and samsara arises wisdom is seemingly obscured resulting in deluded dualistic mind which erroneously perceives a world and matter and all of it. In truth (when one isn't beguiled by afflicted perception) all that appears is the nature of mind (which is the union of empty cognizance and luminous clarity). I'm sure you've heard the analogy of the moon reflected in water, phenomena appear in that way; likened to looking at the surface of a lake and mistaking the reflection of the moon for an actual object, when in truth it is nothing more than water. In experience one mistakes the display of wisdom to be internal/external phenomena and objects (plus other co-emergent qualities such as time, space, location, emotions, sensations, perceptions etc...) when in fact it's simply primordial wisdom.

So it appears as if there is a sun in the sky which exists outside of you as an individual, and it's a completely compelling appearance, it seems truly real. In truth however it is an illusion. Materiality, physicality, matter etc.. appear to exist due to our ignorance, yet they are empty designations which are solely an expression of ignorance.

I'm not sure about Buddha Shakyamuni's son saying that matter was real, I can't see that being that Buddha Shakyamuni certainly didn't teach that view, but I could be wrong.

"Phenomena are the delusion of mind;
Apart from mind there are no phenomena.
The deluded mind appearing as phenomena
is dependently originated, illusory, and uncreated."
- An early Semde text titled Tawai Gumchung


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 29th, 2012 at 4:02 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
A good thing in my opinion! Wake this forum up a bit, it has been sleeping.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 29th, 2012 at 2:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Pema Rigdzin said:
As others have also pointed out, ChNN is giving direct introduction ridiculously often... I can only think of one webcast in the last year when he didn't give it, and it was announced beforehand that it was a general public teaching and not a transmission. WWT is only as special as all of Rinpoche's other webcasts and vice versa.

krodha wrote:
I can see that, perhaps my perception of the transmission needs some refining.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 29th, 2012 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Sherlock said:
Maybe I'm wrong, but if you already have a genuine experience of rigpa either from previous webcasts or through the semdzins etc, the WWT is not really that important.

krodha wrote:
I agree, I wasn't making an issue of it for my own interests, I was speaking for those like windoverwater who were looking forward to the event and unfortunately weren't able to see it.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 29th, 2012 at 2:23 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Pero said:
From my observation of online discussions for years you certainly aren't the only one, maybe others just don't express it in this way. I guess it has to do with it being called "World Wide Transmission", it is kind of grand sounding.

krodha wrote:
Yes I've been taken in by it's grandiose title and presentation.

Pero said:
That's not what your statement implied. Also what you say is not true. How many repetetitions of the various teachings from the Dra Thalgyur tantra, or Kunsang Jaku, or Flight of the garuda, or Sangye Lhakchang, or Yeshe Lama, or the 7 Nails of Sri Singha etc. etc. have there been? None. Whereas the WWTs are repeated every year, three times a year.

krodha wrote:
My statement implies whatever you translate it to imply, as it's filtered through what you wish to see in it, so what I said my statement meant, IS what my statement was meant to imply. However you wanted to see something different and made a slighted remark and I played ball and now you've been able to elaborate your point you vaguely hinted at to draw out a reaction. Yes, perhaps what I said isn't entirely true in the face of some other rare teachings you've brought out to make your point, but this is now merely grasping at straws to make a point.

Pero said:
Uhm what? You don't have to attend a WWT at all. It is not some kind of initial transmission the other webcasts are based on. Rinpoche gives a direct introduction practically every retreat. He just gave it on Thursday too. Practically every retreat is a teaching standing on its own. Just attending one would be theoretically sufficient to achieve realization.

krodha wrote:
You don't have to write "Uhm what?" in some pompous manner, I'm merely trying to speak from my point of view and I'm open to others, and even yours, no need to have an attitude (I suppose I'm just as guilty of copping an attitude though, and for that I apologize). In my experience at our Ling in berkeley, if you haven't attended a WWT you're welcome to attend the practices etc.. but you're strongly advised to attend a WWT and are capable of accessing and partaking in more aspects of the community if you have. So perhaps I erroneously perceived some significance in the WWT and it stuck, but I'm open to seeing it in another light.

Pero said:
The WWT's come from a time when webcast didn't exist you know.

krodha wrote:
No I did not know that.

Pero said:
IMO attending a webcast retreat is much better for a newbie. It's not that one is more precious than the other at all but by attending a retreat it is much easier to understand something.

krodha wrote:
I agree.

Pero said:
Other issues aside, have you explained to him what it's all about and taught him what to do during the transmission?

krodha wrote:
Other issues aside? I'm glad you can find all these issues Pero. He's 3. I do what I can.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 28th, 2012 at 7:02 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Regular webcast is one thing but WWT is an incredibly precious thing to miss out on in my opinion.

Pero said:
Really I'm totally flabbergasted that so many people think this.

krodha wrote:
I'm not sure if 'so many people' think that, since I'm the only one who made the statement. Secondly, you're taking my statement out of context. The point I'm making is: for an aspect of the system to fail during an event that only happens 2 or 3 times a year - as opposed to a webcast that is part of a teaching which spans a few days consecutively and may contain subject matter which is soon revisited - logically, the failure occurring on the rarer biyearly event would be considered more unfortunate. That doesn't mean one is more valuable than the other.

Also, being that the other webcasts are based on the knowledge recognized during that initial transmission (and that one isn't advised to practice too extensively without that introduction), I'd consider the introduction fairly relevant. To use an example which conveys my point in a tangible way: I have a son who's very young, I'd never make him sit through a webcast, but I make sure he receives introduction whenever it happens and the circumstances allow. The transmission establishes that connection, and allows him to have had the privilege of receiving introduction from an authentic and realized teacher.

It makes sense to me. Even though ultimately grasping at the transmission is missing the point, the transmission is important.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 28th, 2012 at 1:27 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Pretty unbelievable! Whether it was technical difficulties or the IT department screwing up royally, something went wrong somewhere. Unfortunate turn of events to say the least. I feel for you windoverwater, from the depths of me. That's some bullshit.

Josef said:
It was perfect for me.
From beginning to end.
Definitely NOT the webcast team or IT department.

Virgo said:
I think the problem was people couldn't connect through mobile devices.

Kevin

krodha wrote:
Yeah the mobile devices section wasn't properly hooked up for some reason. The regular audio and video were good to go but the mobile option never switched over to open access. Not sure what the percentage of people who use mobile devices is (as opposed to the traditional setup), but I'd imagine a good amount were left out in the cold on this. Regular webcast is one thing but WWT is an incredibly precious thing to miss out on in my opinion.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 28th, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
Pretty unbelievable! Whether it was technical difficulties or the IT department screwing up royally, something went wrong somewhere. Unfortunate turn of events to say the least. I feel for you windoverwater, from the depths of me. That's some bullshit.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 28th, 2012 at 11:06 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
T minus 10 mins for WWT, why is the webcast still restricted? Says it requires login info, what gives?

Conceptual said:
Have you tried clearing your cache? It's unrestricted on my end.

krodha wrote:
Did that and now the audio and video are open but mobile devices still require login, only have access to the phone at the moment. Received transmission quite a few times but damn, always try to watch it. Bummer.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 28th, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Title: Re: Next Transmission
Content:
krodha wrote:
Apparently the worldwide transmission isn't open?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 28th, 2012 at 10:50 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
T minus 10 mins for WWT, why is the webcast still restricted? Says it requires login info, what gives?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 21st, 2012 at 5:07 AM
Title: Re: Precious Vase Book
Content:
krodha wrote:
It may just be my Precious Vase PDF version, but I also have the actual book and when I compare the PDF with the book the PDF seems to have alot of pages omitted. When I first got the PDF I uploaded it on my phone and went to a SMS meeting figuring I was all set just to read along with my phone but the pages being discussed were missing. Whole sections missing. Is this the case for all the PDFs? Just in case someone leaks them online? Or is my PDF copy just defective?


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 20th, 2012 at 8:41 AM
Title: Re: Next Transmission
Content:
Sally Gross said:
They also fail to take daylight saving time into account -- the table was probably drawn up before it came to be used in many places. I'm not sure whether or how daylight saving time comes into it when it is summer in the northern hemisphere. It is confusing -- the lists of times need to be corrected and updated to take daylight-saving time into account where applicable.

asunthatneversets said:
It's based off of the lunar cycles which is an accurate way of measuring time that doesn't require adjusting for daylight savings like the Julian calendar the west (unfortunately) adopted.

Sally Gross said:
That is as may be, but converting from a time in a given time zone to another time-zone -- as in the list of times by time-zone -- unavoidably needs to take daylight saving time into account. People's watches and clocks tend to follow the Western system rather than the lunar cycles, alas, and tables of times compiled for convenience need to take that into account.

krodha wrote:
True.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 20th, 2012 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Next Transmission
Content:
Sally Gross said:
They also fail to take daylight saving time into account -- the table was probably drawn up before it came to be used in many places. I'm not sure whether or how daylight saving time comes into it when it is summer in the northern hemisphere. It is confusing -- the lists of times need to be corrected and updated to take daylight-saving time into account where applicable.

krodha wrote:
It's based off of the lunar cycles which is an accurate way of measuring time that doesn't require adjusting for daylight savings like the Julian calendar the west (unfortunately) adopted.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, July 20th, 2012 at 3:43 AM
Title: Re: Next Transmission
Content:
krodha wrote:
I'm pretty sure the worldwide transmissions are at the same time every time, it's whenever the sun rises in the oddiyana area (or perhaps a different location I can't remember) but its the same time every time.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 19th, 2012 at 4:14 PM
Title: Re: Spontaneously Arising Moral Ethics?
Content:
krodha wrote:
"In the ultimate definitive analysis
just as golden chains and hempen ropes are equally binding,
so the sacred and the profane do both enslave us;
and just as white and black clouds are equally enshrouding,
so virtue and vice alike veil gnosis:
the yogin or yogini who understands that
fosters release from moral conditioning."
- Treasury of Natural Perfection

but

"If you, after having resolved that everything is emptiness,
discard virtue and indulge in evil actions frivolously, 
this is the view of the demon of black freedom,
it is essential not to fall prey to this demonic view."
- The Flight of the Garuda

And regarding compassion:

"In particular, if you follow those who say that although one realizes emptiness one must cultivate compassion elsewhere, you are similar to someone who claims that although one has water one must seek wetness elsewhere, that although one has fire one must seek warmth elsewhere, or that although one is fanned by the wind one must seek coolness elsewhere. The decisive experience of certainty that samsara and nirvana are supreme emptiness is itself unsurpassable awakened mind - compassion as the display of samsara and nirvana in the equalness and purity."
- Dudjom Lingpa


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 19th, 2012 at 5:27 AM
Title: Re: Zen has No Morals
Content:
krodha wrote:
These aren't Zen quotes specifically, but (with the insight being equivalent) these also apply to what's being discussed here...

"In the ultimate definitive analysis
just as golden chains and hempen ropes are equally binding,
so the sacred and the profane do both enslave us;
and just as white and black clouds are equally enshrouding,
so virtue and vice alike veil gnosis:
the yogin or yogini who understands that
fosters release from moral conditioning.

As self-sprung awareness arises from within
and the dark night of causality dissolves
the clouds of moral duality melt away
and the sun of nondual truth dawns in the field of reality.
This is final, ultimate resolution,
induced by the absence of the ten techniques,
exalted above all progressive approaches."
- Treasury of Natural Perfection

but

"If you, after having resolved that everything is emptiness,
discard virtue and indulge in evil actions frivolously, 
this is the view of the demon of black freedom,
it is essential not to fall prey to this demonic view."
- The Flight of the Garuda


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 17th, 2012 at 5:16 AM
Title: Re: Did siddha Ramalinga achive the rainbow body?
Content:
krodha wrote:
There's supposedly a few other traditions which have fruition (and practices) equivalent to rainbow body. Maybe someone else can elaborate but I remember a Taoist practice, and a Christian/Catholic practice was spoken of as well. I wouldn't be surprised if the same type of phenomena manifested for individuals of other traditions in rare cases. The fact that it's possible has to be an attribute which is universal to life in general, so if the right conditions and causes are met I don't see why not.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 at 1:13 PM
Title: Re: Ayahuasca and Buddhism
Content:
Tron010101 said:
Having been an active Ayahuasca Practitioner involved in at least 14 serious ceremonies AND an meditation practitioner....i will give you all a heads up.

If you have a choice.....and you do......Do not take Ayahuasca...... or anything external.

Everything you need you all ready have.  Do not go to external sources.

For those who have been down the shamatic path (I have respectfully bowed away from Ayahuasca), some of the following points will ring hard, especially in these times.

1. The Ayahuasca has been turned into a business, a disrespect to the "Madrecita/Ayahuasca" of epic proportions.  As a result, the Shamans/Chefs who are preparing the brew are increasingly tainted, dirty handed, ill intended, and they are sending poison.  Not all, but its becoming an epidemic.

2. Ayahuasca is real.  There are some things that happen in ceremonies that are too risky for the mind.  Seriously.

3. Dark Shamans are rampant, very real and can easily manipulate from a distance.  Hard to believe, strange, but true.  They are taking advantage of tourists.  The spiritual and psychological consequences of the misuse of ayahuasca could be catastrophic.

4. There are certain boundaries and laws that are in place in our reality to permit Humans to progress and make their own choices for themselves and their race.  Ayahuasca will permit you to cross these boundaries... at your risk.  If you cross the boundaries and you are under the wrong supervision.....GOOD LUCK.  Hungry Ghosts are REAL.

I would suggest all practicing buddhist to focus on the three jewels, stay away from all forms of dangerous intoxicants and practice compassion every day.  LOVE IS THE ONLY WAY.

I would like to say, the plant is a blessing, but should be left alone and respected.

krodha wrote:
Unfortunate to hear that such abuse goes on, I guess anything is susceptible to degradation of this nature though. Ayahuasca has always intrigued me, I've never done it myself but a friend of mine doing DMT is actually what ended up sparking my initial interest in the dharma. What are some of the things that happen in ceremonies which are too risky for the mind? I've never heard of dark shamans, I mean I've heard of black practices and I know that any teaching can be made to serve the negative but I'd never heard of dark shamans specifically who deal with ayahuasca and such... interesting stuff.

Some say that the ayahuasca opens doors that would otherwise be inaccessible, and can leave these doors open. Sensors left triggered which are usually dormant and the ability to continually detect perceptive wavelengths previously unavailable (in every day life). Have you experienced anything like this? 14 ceremonies is a lot, curious to know if you've had any intuitive/extra-sensory abilities left activated. Or has it boosted the intensity of your meditative practices/experiences? I find this stuff interesting.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 at 7:20 AM
Title: Re: Can a Christian convert to Buddhist faith?..
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
If from a Christian family you say 'grace' at meals its a form of manifest prayer and merit/favor.

krodha wrote:
Grace, she passed away 30 years ago.

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZcZVugtF6w


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 at 3:53 AM
Title: Re: Do you believe in ghosts?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Important to remember that disbelief is still a form of belief (one simply believes something isn't true). Anything can be turned into a religion/belief system, including atheism, agnosticism, science, psychology etc... all depends on how one relates to these things.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, July 7th, 2012 at 7:37 AM
Title: Re: Shambhala Mountain, forest fire getting close
Content:
krodha wrote:
Hopefully the fire won't reach there. There was a building fire in Berkeley a few months ago where a building (which was attached to a series of other buildings, like any city block) caught fire and the flames consumed the entire building and a restaurant which was a part of the next building. The next store over from the restaurant however is called "Treasures Of Tara" and the owner is a big time practitioner. The fire didn't touch his store. It's incredible, you see an entire charred and gutted building and a boarded up restaurant and then "Treasures Of Tara" just unscathed. No coincidence in my opinion.

My friend also knows someone who kept a photo of Guru Rinpoche's "looks like me" statue in their car's glove compartment. They got in a cataclysmic accident and the entire car was crushed like a tin can right up to the glove compartment, like a straight line. Both the driver and passenger walked away and the police/paramedics couldn't explain it. They said the entire front section of the car should've been crushed.

Hopefully the same goes for shambhala mountain and everyone else who could be potentially effected.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 5th, 2012 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Garuda Practice And Cancer
Content:
krodha wrote:
Someone also just suggested Vajra Armor (Dorje Gotrab) which is supposedly more of an all-encompassing healing practice, would that be a better option? Or a good practice to do in addition to the garuda (as a supplement)? I know the garuda is specifically for cancer, being that cancer is generally a naga provocation. Again any information and/or suggestions are much appreciated.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 5th, 2012 at 6:02 AM
Title: Dzogchen Garuda Practice And Cancer
Content:
krodha wrote:
I have a friend who was just recently diagnosed with bladder cancer and I was curious about doing practice for him. I assume it's ok to do practice for another dealing with such an affliction, what is the proper practice to do? Red garuda? I know there's a few forms, blue and black garuda etc... not sure which is the best one to implement for this. I've received transmission from ChNN for the practice, I know there's books and other info on how to perform the practice properly but I'm not sure how soon I'll be able to get access to those sources. Wondering if anyone can give some more info or perhaps even PM me the proper practice? Supposedly this particular form of cancer is quite aggressive so I'd like to get started as soon as possible, any info would be greatly appreciated.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, July 5th, 2012 at 5:39 AM
Title: Re: Questions regardin God and Nirvana
Content:
Astus said:
Nirvana means extinction. It is the extinction of the cause of suffering, it is the end of attachment. As an example, A is in love with B, then eventually A becomes bored with B, then A feels that B is getting rather annoying, and finally A happily leaves B. Simple story. When A finally gives up on B, that is the nirvana, the total extinction of A's infatuation with B. All beings are very much attached to the sensual impressions, their emotions and their ideas. But when one learns that it is this grasping of phenomena that is causing all the trouble, one gradually becomes disinterested in them, and turns away from them. And that is nirvana, when one has left behind all attachment for good. The bonfire of passion is now a pile of cold ash. The love story is over. Does this sound like a mystical experience? Or a divine presence?

krodha wrote:
It's a bit more than simply disinterest wouldn't you say? Detachment can be a good practice to cultivate the view (if that is the appropriate method for said individual), but it's more than ending attachment, aversion must be seen through as well. I'm not trying to be polemic or challenge what you're saying in a petty way or anything, what you're saying is right. Seems there's more to it though, in my experience at least. Disinterest may indeed be an aspect of the way the realization gradually unfolds, even more so once a genuine flash of nirvanic insight is apperceived. Nirvana does sever the allure of attachment, and true nirvana surely is the end of attachment, but the cause of suffering isn't necessarily attachment itself. The cause, is the erroneous notion that there was ever an A to be attached to B in the first place. So perhaps we're saying the same thing and I'm misreading what you wrote, but for me nirvana is a bit more than merely turning away, or leaving behind attachment, it's true extinction and total exhaustion of that which attachment is predicated on. The delusion is the entity which is born of (and sustained through the proliferation of) attachment and aversion. Being an illusion it causes suffering, because it's an aberration, a beautiful aberration, but an aberration and abstraction no doubt. The essential experience (or direct apprehension) does have the quality of the mystical... divine, but not in the sense of divine in a religious or godly sense, since that type of theological notion is certainly a projection of ignorance. In some ways though, it is the beginning of true passion and the beginning of the real love story. Beyond the dualities which produce pseudo passion and attachment/infatuation mistaken for love.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 4th, 2012 at 12:05 PM
Title: Re: "2+1=3 it also equals 21." ChNN
Content:
deepbluehum said:
So my questions, is it appropriate to lead students of Buddhism in this way, or is it not?

Is it more appropriate to condition students only with the dogma of the past?

If we decide to go the Dzogchen/Modern Philosophy way, does it mean we are no longer Buddhist? Or is there another way of being Buddhist that does not strictly adhere to dogma and might even challenge Buddhist dogma?

krodha wrote:
Wouldn't it be true that the perversion of the teachings into "dogma" is contingent upon individual interpretation? I suppose I see no dogma, all tenets of the dharma are merely pointers, none are meant to be absolute laws, rules or regulations. If one turns such things into dogma then that is merely the error of that individual, the tendency for such misinterpretation to be paraded as truth and taught to others (in it's skewed state) is again dependent on human error. If you get enough people to follow an erroneous view, then it is merely the manifest macrocosm naturally reflecting the initial misunderstanding of the microcosm. The original teachings however, are never adulterated or stained within this chain of ignorance. For the founding message or tenets are only ever what they're made to be, those who clearly understand them will benefit, and those who misunderstand will obviously deviate. It's only natural for this to happen. The attachment to the resultant dogma is again the error of the individual or group, those with higher capacity will naturally see through this mishap, and the higher teachings are there for them. The full spectrum of the teachings naturally reflects the spectrum of the human condition in it's many psychological and intellectual facets.

As for being a "buddhist", none are that. But the title or label is there and there's no need to suppress it in my opinion. Those who don't clearly perceive the fundamental message may attach to this label, identify with it and call themselves a "buddhist", and yes that may serve as an obstructive shortcoming. At the same time, others may implement the label and (because they exhibit right view) will rise above delusion and see the title as an ornament of their clear apprehension of the dharma. Either way, the label is again solely what it is made to be and harbors no authority or nature of it's own. Only that which is given to it by the mind of the individual and it will rightly reflect said designation (and founding perception). Those who know better will never fall victim to dogmatic views, the fundamental truth which transcends dogma is always present and there to be found, it's only ever obscured by one's own ignorance. Again (just as in the discussion on islam) the issue is never in the objective structure itself, but lies in the collective proclivity to pervert any subsequent ignorance derived from humanity's natural tendency to seek discipline, structure and authority. And there's nothing wrong with discipline, structure and authority, the problems arise from wrong identification with these things. There will always be the full spectrum, from wisdom to ignorance and all of the potential outcomes involved. The varying systems of belief or spiritual disciplines which exist today are reflections of a collective state of mind, not only of the individual systems but their interaction with other systems as well. It is the play of duality and it's only ever mankind's ignorance (or wisdom for that matter) which shines through. Luckily for us the dharma is meant to cut through any potential ignorance (and it is a incredible tool to do so), but that doesn't guarantee protection against the tendency for ignorance to flourish where the ground is fertile.

I find the original teachings to speak clearly and light the path unerringly. It is the clouded mind which cannot see the way.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 4th, 2012 at 5:08 AM
Title: Re: Goodbye from me!
Content:
krodha wrote:
Damn what?! I'll keep my fingers crossed you come back soon... shame to see you go I enjoy your contributions to the discussions on here.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, July 4th, 2012 at 4:38 AM
Title: Re: Some practice-related questions
Content:
Sherlock said:
Someone posted about vajra sister who is a neuroscientist doing some scans of the brain while practising meditation in the Dzogchen way which showed a reduction in activity of the prefrontal cortex and also quoted some texts saying the feeling is like lifting a hat off your head. I often feel like this during practice and afterwards, is this what ChNN calls "presence"? Vidya/instant presence I think I feel only in some momentary flashes while doing guruyoga.

krodha wrote:
I'm sure there can be greater and lesser degrees of genuine insight, but one of the qualities of a true recognition experience is overwhelming certainty beyond the need for secondary confirmation or validation.


Sherlock said:
Has anyone had any experiences of really learning something in a dream of clarity? Rinpoche is Rinpoche but any of us unrealized practitioners received any teachings in dreams? Can you PM me about this if you don't feel like posting this in public?

Thanks

krodha wrote:
The more your mind is on the teachings the more you'll have dharma themed dreams. Dreams of clarity are an altogether different animal though, product of higher levels of realization and stability. I'm fairly certain you have to be at the point where you're remaining conscious in the dream state the majority of the time to experience dreams of clarity. I read somewhere that I took one teacher 7 years of abiding in the natural state to start remaining lucid in his sleep. All depends on the individual though.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012 at 7:40 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
Ekajati, Rahula and Dorje Legpa are the 3 principal "protectors" according to ChNN, Ekajati being the main. Perhaps their association together as the triad is unique to the lineage, I'm not sure. I have a thangka with only the 3 of them on it so it must not be that uncommon. Each controls certain beings of the 8 classes though.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012 at 5:33 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
mint said:
Will the e-mails stop when my DC membership ends next January?

krodha wrote:
They will never stop. It never sleeps.

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mna4bEWL0zE

You could probably just have them automatically forward to a designated folder of your choice in your email, then they won't be in your inbox.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, July 2nd, 2012 at 5:17 AM
Title: Re: Questioning Alayavijnana
Content:
Astus said:
I'm not sure which one is the case, but it seems the question is either said incorrectly by me, or I don't see the answers' relevance to it, or its meaning has eluded those who have kindly replied. So now I try from a slightly different perspective.

Let's say that the alayavijnana is simply a theoretical supposition, a convenient explanation about how memory, mind and karma works. The seeds are simply our unquestioned views we follow all the time. Once seen through, it's all gone. Unfortunately, this makes the whole argument for alayavijnana quite weak.

krodha wrote:
But those unquestioned views generally remain unquestioned for the majority of people. Some are so deeply engrained that the truth remains elusive even when questioned and analyzed repeatedly. Seeing through that veil isn't so easy, and that veil of presuppositions actually manifests as perceptions which appear to be inherent aspects of experience to the untrained eye. Granted once a perception is seen for what it is it does lose it's luster, but some perceptions are so reified through habitual tendencies that their effect can remain indefinitely. It's a veil or a cloud and it serves to block and inhibit true knowledge, doesn't mean it's a physical or mental thing, but it's an abstraction composed of a variety of interlinking causes no doubt.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 1st, 2012 at 9:22 AM
Title: Re: Have you ever "looked inside" the mind of a Billionaire?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Money rules everything, many of us have been reduced to hamsters running on a wheel, chasing paychecks to get by.

kirtu said:
Some of us live in primitive societies where we may starve in the streets. Securing resources is necessary.

Kirt

krodha wrote:
But of course, how one relates to securing those resources is where the problem lies. In many societies it's been set up so you have to play the game if you desire the amenities and standards we've been conditioned to require. And there's nothing wrong with that, most people would rather live comfortably, myself included. But do we see it for what it is? As a game? Do we treat money like the convention it is? Or are we caught up in the game, swept away by it and thoroughly identify with it?

Bill Hicks puts it well:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkhR8suCF4

Mr. Hicks clearly had some profound realizations himself...
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAJPdenxVlw


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 1st, 2012 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Have you ever "looked inside" the mind of a Billionaire?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Money rules everything, many of us have been reduced to hamsters running on a wheel

Lhug-Pa said:
"Cash Rules Everything Around Me, CREAM, get the money, dollar-dollar bill y'all."

krodha wrote:
Ha funny thing my friend went to that bodhi tree book store in LA (when me and him were first getting into the dharma) and GZA was in there buying Zen books (RZA and GZA are big time zen practitioners). Being a Wu-Tang fan he took it as some type of sign that his newfound interest in the dharma was the right path.

And now he's a Rosicrucian practitioner. Head first dzogchen, come out Rosicrucian, go figure... Whatever makes him happy and gets the job done though, it's all good to me, I get to hear about interesting Rosicrucian stuff from him now.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, July 1st, 2012 at 2:14 AM
Title: Re: Have you ever "looked inside" the mind of a Billionaire?
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
Well, yes sure of course. If you're "divorced" from what you're supposed to be earning ($In American dollars$)-I guess you move on and do something else.

krodha wrote:
What are you supposed to be earning? I wasn't advocating moving onto something else, just saying that money is merely a symbol which lacks innate value, so a billionaire is really no different than anyone else. Putting a billionaire on a pedestal is ignorant. It surely happens this day in age, but only due to the subconscious compulsion to equate money with true wealth and value. Money rules everything, many of us have been reduced to hamsters running on a wheel, chasing paychecks to get by. Within that structure, monetary abundance is associated with freedom from that rat race. So we exalt those (the rich) who have escaped the bondage of slavery enduced by money, and most aspire for that pseudo-freedom themselves. In truth, however, the wealthy haven't escaped from suffering, they've only done so symbolically by winning some degree of financial freedom and are therefore liberated from the false structure of financial burden. Money has no value apart from that which is assigned to it. Money has value because we all collectively agree that it does, the whole structure exists solely within the mind. So winning monetary abundance means that one has conquered the system enforced by the collective mind of man. It isn't true freedom, you see many of the world's "rich" people still suffering, depression, loss etc. True freedom is won by seeing through the game, disavowing it and not allowing oneself to be governed by it. And the truest liberation is the freedom won through true knowledge.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 30th, 2012 at 3:47 PM
Title: Re: Have you ever "looked inside" the mind of a Billionaire?
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
Just wondering, have you ever "looked inside" the mind a Billionaire?..

krodha wrote:
First come to know your own mind, and then you'll know the mind of the billionaire and the mind of the person without a dime to their name. When you understand yourself you understand everyone else, emotions, reactivity, nuances, projections, behaviors are universal and the same for everyone. The functioning of the mind is like a science, when you thoroughly understand the structure of the science then you see it playing out in everyone you meet. Ignorance of oneself means ignorance of all, knowledge of oneself means knowledge of all. The billionaire's mind is no different than yours. And in truth the billionaire is no more wealthy than the person without a dime to their name.

Never forget that one may indeed know the price of everything, yet the value of nothing. Your wealth is not your value. True wealth has nothing to do with money.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 27th, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Title: Re: Is the Sikh religion influenced by (even based on) Dzogchen?
Content:
deepbluehum said:
That's nice and beautiful bla bla bla. But that won't change Islam's history of invading peaceful nations,

krodha wrote:
Nothing which hasn't been done by countless other nations or groups identifying with particular ideologies.

deepbluehum said:
slaughtering their children and kidnapping and raping their women to transform the society into Islamic nation.

krodha wrote:
Nothing which hasn't been done by countless other nations or groups identifying with particular ideologies.

deepbluehum said:
Nothing about my touchy feelies can change that. Next you are going to celebrate the virtues of communism. Islam and communism are the culprits of destruction against Buddha dharma too. I hope they are destroyed together.

krodha wrote:
No virtues have been celebrated thus far to warrant further celebration of any ideology (be it communism or any other). It has nothing to do with celebrating virtues. It comes down to identification with thought and attachment to belief. If you think Islam or communism could possibly destroy the dharma then you've mistook the dharma for a belief system yourself. You don't understand that by wishing for the demise of Islam or communism you're only contributing to the belief identified prejudice you claim to be rejecting. Feeding the fires of separation and sewing the seeds of hate and war all in the name of peace. That isn't what the Buddha taught. By eradicating Islam or communism you merely replace one ideology with another and the ignorance persists. The conflict is within the mind and must be resolved within the mind. It's a psychological crisis. You downplay addressing the problem within because you don't understand (don't seem to at least), and that's ok, if I was to wholeheartedly reject your message I would be falling victim to the same delusion. So please continue with your prejudiced discrimination and hold an entire belief system accountable for the actions of radical subsidiary factions and rouge extremists. It's unsound logic in my eyes but to each their own.

That being said I understand you're an opinionated person and there's nothing wrong with that, we all are in our own ways. So no contention here, I just don't agree, but sometimes agreeing to disagree is the best route.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 27th, 2012 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Jacob said:
Hm, could anyone explain me what's the function of serkyem practice?

krodha wrote:
Random but recently a friend of mine started working for the show "ghost hunters" and she does on location work so she's in these haunted areas with them. She was telling me some of the ways they contact and appease these spirits and one of the ways is to make an offering of fruit or some other food. She said they can't offer anything packaged because depending on the era the spirits are from they wouldn't understand packaged food but she said they make an offering at every location, usually fresh fruit. And supposedly this goes over quite well with whatever beings they're in contact with. Made me think of serkyem, since it essentially is a loose form of serkyem (though I doubt they call on enlightened beings and local guardians to be present).


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 26th, 2012 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: Not Accepting, Not Rejecting
Content:
MalaBeads said:
Thanks to you both. I get it. Just more work to be done.


krodha wrote:
Notice that experience is fresh and new every single moment, all qualities which constitute (and serve to create) this present moment simply appear alone to themselves. "I experience this" is simply a thought which appears to no one and points to nothing. There is a subtle flow always immediately present, so so subtle, if you try to apprehend it you've already done too much. I know it's a cliche in these teachings but in truth everything is already spontaneously accomplished, there is truly nothing to do. Just as Fa Dao said, accepting/rejecting presupposes (and serves to create/sustain) a separate entity, existing apart from experience (where no such entity exists). This is why dzogchen isn't a causal vehicle, it's perfectly accomplished since the very beginning, "you" cannot attain it, or "get it". It's like those zen sayings "You cannot grasp it; Nor can you get rid of it. In not being able to get it, you get it. When you speak, it is silent; When you are silent, it speaks". To accept or reject something there first has to be a quality or "thing" to accept/reject and one to do the accepting and rejecting. Acceptance and rejection appear to happen, yet it's only illusory. Everything simply seemingly "happens". When you rest presently(which is the only way one can), there's never been a moment prior to this, there will never be a moment after this, nothing has to be done to attain one's true nature, you simply have to recognize it. This inconceivable, indescribable, inexplicable conscious presence IS the reality-field in it's entirety. Your "being" is experience itself, yet you are not, and experience is likewise unestablished.

Take a dream for example, in the dream, you as the dream character are merely a conglomerate of dream qualities, an image, thoughts in the dream, sensations, yet none of these appearances truly creates a truly existing entity, just an appearance in the dream. The same appearances likewise create the dream-environment and dream-world, yet no world is truly created, just an appearance in the dream. And in fact the dream itself IS these appearances. This present experience is no different and in fact appears the same way. You are this timelessly present field of potentiality, and everything appearing is of one taste just as all dream appearances are of the dream. Just like the dream, in this present experience the body is an image appearing nowhere and belonging to no one, thoughts are appearances pointing to nothing and belonging to no one, sensations simply arise, nothing is felt, no one feels, nothing is seen, no one sees, nothing is heard, no one hears.

It's incredible that it's actuality is such utter simplicity yet at the same time attempting to describe it is nearly impossible.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 26th, 2012 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Not Accepting, Not Rejecting
Content:
Simon E. said:
Aversion arises....attraction arises. They pass.

krodha wrote:
This is only tentatively true, an arising (and the act of passing) would require an abiding background to gauge those distinctions against, there should be no arising/abiding/passing if one is genuinely resting in the natural state.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 25th, 2012 at 9:39 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Teaching is Free From Limitations
Content:
deepbluehum said:
I feel like I shouldn't leave this hanging. I'll try to be reserved. For example, tanha doesn't mean desire. It means urge. Avijja doesn't mean ignorance. It means unawares.

krodha wrote:
"The second of the noble truths is about the cause of suffering, and this in sanskrit is called 'tṛṣna'. Tṛṣna is related to our word 'thirst', it's very often translated 'desire', better perhaps is 'craving', 'clinging', 'grasping', or even to use our modern psychological word 'blocking'. When for example, somebody is blocked and dithers and hesitates and doesn't know what to do, he is in the strictest buddhist sense, attached, he's stuck. But a buddha can't be stuck, he cannot be phased, he always flows just as water always flows even if you dam it, the river just keeps on getting higher and higher until it flows over the dam, it's unstoppable. Now buddha said duḥkha comes from tṛṣna, 'you all suffer because you cling to the world, and you don't recognize that the world is anitya and anātman'."
- Alan Watts


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 25th, 2012 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Buddha Magic?
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
like Clairvoyance?..And psychokinetic mental powers?

krodha wrote:
Five siddhis of Yoga and meditation
In the Bhagavata Purana, the five siddhis of Yoga and meditation are described as below:

tri-kāla-jñatvam: knowing the past, present and future
advandvam: tolerance of heat, cold and other dualities
para citta ādi abhijñatā: knowing the minds of others and so on
agni arka ambu viṣa ādīnām pratiṣṭambhaḥ: checking the influence of fire, sun, water, poison, and so on
aparājayah: remaining unconquered by others

Eight Primary Siddhis
There is the concept of the Ashta Siddhi (eight siddhis) in Hinduism. These are:

Aṇimā: reducing one's body even to the size of an atom
Mahima: expanding one's body to an infinitely large size
Garima: becoming infinitely heavy
Laghima: becoming almost weightless
Prāpti: having unrestricted access to all places
Prākāmya: realizing whatever one desires
Iṣṭva: possessing absolute lordship
Vaśtva: the power to subjugate all

Ten secondary siddhis
In the Bhagavata Purana, Lord Krishna describes the ten secondary siddhis as:

anūrmi-mattvam: Being undisturbed by hunger, thirst, and other bodily disturbances
dūra-śravaṇa: Hearing things far away
dūra-darśanam: Seeing things far away
manaḥ-javah: Moving the body wherever thought goes (teleportation)
kāma-rūpam: Assuming any form desired
para-kāya praveśanam: Entering the bodies of others
sva-chanda mṛtyuh: Dying when one desires
devānām saha krīḍā anudarśanam: Witnessing and participating in the pastimes of the gods
yathā sańkalpa saḿsiddhiḥ: Perfect accomplishment of one's determination
ājñā apratihatā gatiḥ: Orders or commands being unimpeded

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siddhi


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 23rd, 2012 at 3:30 PM
Title: Re: Is the Sikh religion influenced by (even based on) Dzogchen?
Content:
deepbluehum said:
Ask yourself, if Islam were to disappear from the face of the Earth, would the world be a better place, or no difference?

krodha wrote:
Not at all, no difference. The poison isn't in the belief system, it's in how individuals relate to the belief system. How people relate to themselves and the world is the issue. Attachment and aversion is where the problem lies, all separation and disputes are predicated on attachment/aversion. It's a sickness of the mind, not a sickness of the belief system. Even you and I discussing this now are subtly creating our little division, you take one side, I take another and the contrasting views create conflict on a small scale (even though we're obviously being cordial towards each other). Now take this little debate and super size it to the level of different cultures debating religious views, land rights etc... there's always two sides to every story. Islam cannot be an issue without someone having an issue with Islam, it's a projection of the self into the other. We are only ever fighting ourselves, (but because we are victims of our own projections) it stays on a subconscious level. Muslims are no different than you or I, they are merely a human being accepting and rejecting things, just as you/me accept or reject them. Islam is not the threat, we, who would reject and demonize Islam are the threat to ourselves, we create the enemy by rejecting it, and then we say "wouldn't the world be a better place without Islam?" While the muslim is saying the exact same thing about those who fight against them. You cannot kill a religion, you cannot kill an idea, the war is an endless war, because you yourself create the enemy through your own attachments. The war is within yourself, you say "I am this", "they are that", but they are only ever what you make them, there is no objective truth, your perceptions are only ever projections of yourself.

“Peace comes from within.  Do not seek it without.” 
- Siddhārtha Gautama

"Be the change that you wish to see in the world"
- Mahatma Gandhi

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.” 
- Albert Einstein

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” 
- Leo Tolstoy

“Those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.” 
- George Bernard Shaw

“I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself.” 
- Aldous Huxley

“Change the way you look at things and the things you look at change.” 
- Wayne W. Dyer

“Let him who would move the world first move himself.” 
- Socrates

“Change your thoughts and you change your world.” 
- Norman Vincent Peale

“When we attempt to exercise power or control over someone else, we cannot avoid giving that person the very same power or control over us.” 
- Alan Watts

“Purity or impurity depends on oneself,
No one can purify another.” 
- Siddhārtha Gautama

“True change is within; leave the outside as it is.” 
- Dalai Lama XIV

“With our thoughts we make the world.” 
- Siddhārtha Gautama


deepbluehum said:
What about Buddha-dharma? Without Buddhism, the world would be uninhabitable.

krodha wrote:
Without kindness and compassion the world would be uninhabitable, kindness and compassion belong to no ideology or label.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 23rd, 2012 at 9:09 AM
Title: Re: Is the Sikh religion influenced by (even based on) Dzogchen?
Content:
deepbluehum said:
I understand the argument. I don't agree it applies in the case of Sikhism or Islam for that matter where violence and war are not tangential to the story but formative of it.

krodha wrote:
War and violence are not formative characteristics of the Sikh or Muslim religions. Unfortunately nowadays with the war campaign going on in the middle east, regions where violence is prominent are culturally islamic, but Islam itself is a peaceful religion. It's all a matter of perception, there's probably some individuals in afghanistan saying the same thing about western culture and judeo-Christian religions. Both sides are right and wrong in their respective ways. Violence doesn't stem from the religion itself but from certain individuals/groups involved with said religion. We wonder why those regions are violent, given the mind state of most people nowadays if your country was being occupied by an outside force the people of your country would most likely be violent too (Tibet being an exception to this example).


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 23rd, 2012 at 8:25 AM
Title: Re: Is the Sikh religion influenced by (even based on) Dzogchen?
Content:
deepbluehum said:
Guru Gobind Singh transformed a yogi religion into a soldier religion. The soldier and warfare mentality is deeply ingrained there. If you become a sikh and get involved in Gurudwara activities, you cannot avoid it. If you just want to go for lungar, they will serve lunch and then you can go. That's very nice. But if you become sikh, violence and feuding in Gurudwaras is a huge massive widespread problem. These are not isolated cases. You can find weapons caches in the Gurudwara. Some might say this is only the work of the Jats. It is true the Jats are a particularly rambunctious subcaste, but they totally dominate the Sikh culture and in any event exemplify Guru Gobind Singh's ethos to the highest degree.

krodha wrote:
Right but the religion itself doesn't propagate violence. And there are other sikh sects and Sikh practitioners who aren't violent. The violence related to the gurudwara activities is the result of conditioning and groupthink. Just like Islamic extremists who engage in violent activity, Islam itself is a beautiful religion, the few bad apples who are jihadists don't speak for the whole. It would be like saying "there's been over 200 murders in Oakland this year, everyone who lives in Oakland is a murderer."

deepbluehum said:
Any way, Dzogchen is the religion of the dancing dakinis. Dzogchen is completely different from sikhism, thankfully.

krodha wrote:
Undoubtably.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 23rd, 2012 at 7:36 AM
Title: Re: Is the Sikh religion influenced by (even based on) Dzogchen?
Content:
deepbluehum said:
I have seen many shootings at Gurudwaras between feuding Sikhs. They can be a rather violent bunch. Sikhism doesn't resemble Dzogchen at all.

krodha wrote:
Those certain persons (who may have been practitioners of sikhism) were violent. The violence stems from an issue on the level of the psyche, nothing to do with Sikhism or any other religion, race, sex, creed.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 23rd, 2012 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: Explanation of the Dzogchen symbol ~ What does it mean?
Content:
Tara said:
Looks like we are drifting (metaphorically) any further gibberish *slaps own wrists* I mean posts will be removed without further notice.

"Explanation of the Dzogchen symbol - What does it mean?"

Regards,

krodha wrote:
No need to slap your own wrist (metaphorically, literally or actually), gibberish is a sound assessment(I'm fluent) Wes and I will behave and get back to discussing rainbow colored thigles.

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke5Mr5eCF2U


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 23rd, 2012 at 5:26 AM
Title: Re: Explanation of the Dzogchen symbol ~ What does it mean?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Ok so how do detectives or law enforcement fit into this?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 23rd, 2012 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Explanation of the Dzogchen symbol ~ What does it mean?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Law enforcement! Wes, I love you man and I'm glad you post on here (so forgive me), but have you perhaps taken a hit of some high powered sh*t in the past half hour or so? Because upon re-evaluating the discussion that has transpired here today, the inquiring mind may come to the conclusion that you're higher than a giraffe's ding dong right now. But, could be wrong.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 23rd, 2012 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: Explanation of the Dzogchen symbol ~ What does it mean?
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
Is that a reference to that tree metaphor I posted last week? Are you speaking metaphorically? If you're not I'm thoroughly confused! If you're being literal I don't know what that has to do with the topic, but that is cool you have gardening and tree landscaping type skills, I can mow a lawn but that's about it.


Wesley1982 said:
It would be alot like trimming a tree for a Buddha to meditate underneath in the shade. (the sun comes out and it gets hot)

krodha wrote:
Well if it's shade you want you need not trim my friend, the shade is always there, just need to find the right place to sit. Ha I covered the metaphorical and literal with that one, I still don't know which one we're employing at the moment. We're certainly going out on a limb though, perhaps we're barking up the wrong tree but if topics like these help you to branch out and get to the root of things I'm all for it. Getting out of the woods is the most important thing (all puns and metaphors intended).

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W6JgnCFezo


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 23rd, 2012 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: Explanation of the Dzogchen symbol ~ What does it mean?
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
By the way, I have access to tree trimming & cutting equipment. I don't know how you would trim & cut palm,coconut, or malaysian trees.

What I do is cut the branches so they grow back out and get real lush.

krodha wrote:
Is that a reference to that tree metaphor I posted last week? Are you speaking metaphorically? If you're not I'm thoroughly confused! If you're being literal I don't know what that has to do with the topic, but that is cool you have gardening and tree landscaping type skills, I can mow a lawn but that's about it.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 23rd, 2012 at 1:17 AM
Title: Re: Is the Sikh religion influenced by (even based on) Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Interesting that after Nanak's initial realization he was silent for some time and then his first words were "there is no Hindu, there is no Muslim".


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 22nd, 2012 at 2:09 PM
Title: Re: Is sex considered vulgar to Buddhists?
Content:
krodha wrote:
"When you enter this pure path,
Unsuitable things which otherwise would be eliminated - 
Even the five passions and the five heinous crimes - 
are wonderfully the same.
Nothing, not even sex, is abandoned."
- Longchenpa


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 21st, 2012 at 1:04 PM
Title: Re: Explanation of the Dzogchen symbol ~ What does it mean?
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
Right, well more than dozen Dallas/Ft. Worth pastors would probably tell you that this idea or concept called "God" will fill that emptiness.

krodha wrote:
And they would be offering a temporary solution, tantamount to doping someone with an opiate. Again, emptiness in buddhism is a different emptiness, but the empty void that those pastors would be addressing (the emptiness inside oneself that humanity scrambles to fill in any way possible), cannot be filled by god or anything else. That void is the result of identifying with an abstraction. The abstraction (individual) feels inherently incomplete and seeks wholeness through various means, because the individual is itself a concept (completely illusory). How can you complete or fill a concept? You can't touch, throw, roll, bounce a concept. God, being a concept itself, cannot fill or complete another concept. Anything "external" that one grasps to fill the void, will always fail to fill the void, experiences, religion, drugs, alcohol, sex, relationships etc... all are temporary fixes (some better than others). They are a) transient and b) an abstraction predicated on another abstraction. Dharma practiced correctly will nullify the void by revealing the unreality of the void.

Apologies for being preachy but those pastors (though they mean well and I commend their efforts) unwittingly deceive others. Glad you see that "god" is an idea or concept, it surely is.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 20th, 2012 at 2:53 PM
Title: Re: Explanation of the Dzogchen symbol ~ What does it mean?
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
I don't know how someone could be so self-conscious of having to take a shit.

krodha wrote:
My mentor actually went out of his way to teach me(and my friend) that sitting on the toilet is the perfect time to practice. He said "what else are you doing? Shitting? Sound some A's do some guru yoga and dedicate the merit before you get up". There was another time when some poor kid asked him for an interview and he told the kid that he'd only do the interview during his morning shit. So the next morning the kid showed up bright and early and my mentor made the kid buy him coffee, and then they both just sat there. The kid tried to start the interview but my mentor refused and made the kid wait til nature called. When it was time they both made their way to the bathroom and kid filmed the interview while my mentor sat on the toilet, to this day he's still searching for the kid so he can get a copy of the interview.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 20th, 2012 at 11:07 AM
Title: Re: Explanation of the Dzogchen symbol ~ What does it mean?
Content:


Dronma said:
Maybe "others" do not even exist......

Sally Gross said:
Oh heavens ... a Cartesian turn ... Descartes' evil demon who persuades the unwary into solipsism ...

Rene Descartes said:
I will suppose, then, not that Deity, who is sovereignly good and the fountain of truth, but that some malignant demon, who is at once exceedingly potent and deceitful, has employed all his artifice to deceive me; t will suppose that the sky, the air, the earth, colors, figures, sounds, and all external things, are nothing better than the illusions of dreams, by means of which this being has laid snares for my credulity; I will consider myself as without hands, eyes, flesh, blood, or any of the senses, and as falsely believing that I am possessed of these; I will continue resolutely fixed in this belief, and if indeed by this means it be not in my power to arrive at the knowledge of truth, I shall at least do what is in my power, viz., [ suspend my judgment ], and guard with settled purpose against giving my assent to what is false, and being imposed upon by this deceiver, whatever be his power and artifice.

Descartes, Meditations on First Philosophy, Meditation 1, paragraph 12.

Sally Gross said:
It is actually a good exercise to think through this. Whether it is a meditation in the Dharmic sense is another question; but ChNNR does advise us to integrate, and if one has studied Western philosophy, that too can surely be integrated.

krodha wrote:
You're right, only the unwary are persuaded into solipsism, but the emptiness of others doesn't necessarily imply a solipsistic view. Dronma is right in suggesting that self-liberation would naturally be complemented by the liberation of other. Solipsism would require a mind (or consciousness) to act as a substratum or container, the accurate view of emptiness and clarity (in union) is a safeguard against erroneous notions of a substratum and therefore negates a solipsistic view.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 20th, 2012 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Explanation of the Dzogchen symbol ~ What does it mean?
Content:
uan said:
stop thinking about "universal suffering from the "magical illusion" we think of as reality?" What does that even mean? Those words don't mean anything. Even in a non-buddhist sense they are so so incredibly vague as to mean whatever anyone wants them to mean, so essentially they mean nothing.

krodha wrote:
"Origination, endurance and destruction as well
Are said to be just like
A dream, a magical illusion,
And a city of ethereal spirits."
- Nāgārjuna

Some obviously thought about it quite a bit.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 20th, 2012 at 2:49 AM
Title: Re: Explanation of the Dzogchen symbol ~ What does it mean?
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
I think if people are suffering from this "illusion" I would want to treat and possibly cure it.

krodha wrote:
This is actually precisely how Buddha Śākyamuni approached the issue, the four noble truths are essentially a prescription for an illness. The first, stating the name of the illness. The second being the cause of the illness. The third stating that a cure is possible. And the fourth, the means to cure oneself.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 19th, 2012 at 8:06 PM
Title: Re: Asked to join Christian Prayer; Need Advice Please
Content:
krodha wrote:
I say go to the service, do the prayers they do, smile and enjoy it... there's no harm in any of it. True dharma speaks through all things


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 19th, 2012 at 6:31 AM
Title: Re: Explanation of the Dzogchen symbol ~ What does it mean?
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
Nope. You ask that because other magic related spiritual traditions incorporate the elements in their practices and teachings? In the dzogchen symbol the colors represent the elements but they also represent the 5 lights. The lights become the elements when under the influence of ignorance. Which is essentially not recognizing that the 5 lights are ones own display. Nothing to do with magic, though reality itself is said to be essentially equivalent to a magical illusion.

Wesley1982 said:
In your opinion, do we all suffer from this "magical illusion" of reality? Was it the Buddha who could see things as they really are?..

krodha wrote:
We suffer when we don't understand the true nature of reality and get caught up in delusion. 99.9999% are caught in delusion, the small few who see things are they really are, are buddhas. The Buddha (Śākyamuni) was one buddha, his teaching is what buddhism is based on, but there were myriads of buddhas before him, and there will be (and have been) myriads of buddhas after him. They all teach the dharma which is simply the truth of this "magical illusion" we call reality. When the dharma is translated into ideas and concepts it appears to be a philosophy, but when the dharma is truly actualized in one's experience it is simply the true state of being (beyond ideas and concepts) which removes the plague of suffering. We suffer because we don't understand, the dharma is the means to understand, and when we finally understand we are free.

"The dimension of apparitional being is pure and total presence....
there is no benefitting beings apart from pure and total presence.
All the buddhas of the three times(past, present, future), do not exist apart from this pure and total presence.
The buddhas of the past have seen and recognized their own minds to be this uncontrived state.
The present buddhas, recognizing their own uncontrived minds to be uncontrived,
even now are bringing about the welfare of beings.
The buddhas who will come in the future, will not teach that this self-arising
pure fact of awareness was previously contrived.
This present uncontrived state of contemplation comes from staying on the uncontrived path."
- Longchenpa


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 19th, 2012 at 3:09 AM
Title: Re: Explanation of the Dzogchen symbol ~ What does it mean?
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
Does it represent magical properties?

krodha wrote:
Nope. You ask that because other magic related spiritual traditions incorporate the elements in their practices and teachings? In the dzogchen symbol the colors represent the elements but they also represent the 5 lights. The lights become the elements when under the influence of ignorance. Which is essentially not recognizing that the 5 lights are ones own display. Nothing to do with magic, though reality itself is said to be essentially equivalent to a magical illusion.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 18th, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Title: Re: Small Problem with DC Webcasts
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
Yes, I can hear a small volume with a hearing aid. Is Mandarin the official language of the Chinese?..

I can watch the DC webcasts but generally need a modern English "translation."

asunthatneversets said:
Everything he's saying is in english (just with an accent), except for the lungs he gives for the certain practices which are in tibetan (and are the mantras for the practice), during those just be present, they are transmissions to do those practices.

Some of the terminology he uses is also in the context of the teaching he's giving, and can be hard to decipher if you're not familiar with the full spectrum of practices and yānas. The more you listen the easier it will become to understand.

Wesley1982 said:
That's not how the hearing problem works.

I hear the voices and sounds but what is being said is not clear - so deciphering is involved in what the other person is saying.

krodha wrote:
Oh ok, I didn't realize you were talking about the hearing issue, my little brother has the same type of thing, he usually lip reads to supplement his listening so I know how that goes. I'm not sure what the best option for that would be during live webcasts but if you're a member of the community I know there's access to archived video so you could go back and re-listen part by part. There may be transcriptions too, I'm not really sure.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 18th, 2012 at 5:12 AM
Title: Re: Small Problem with DC Webcasts
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
Yes, I can hear a small volume with a hearing aid. Is Mandarin the official language of the Chinese?..

I can watch the DC webcasts but generally need a modern English "translation."

krodha wrote:
Everything he's saying is in english (just with an accent), except for the lungs he gives for the certain practices which are in tibetan (and are the mantras for the practice), during those just be present, they are transmissions to do those practices.

Some of the terminology he uses is also in the context of the teaching he's giving, and can be hard to decipher if you're not familiar with the full spectrum of practices and yānas. The more you listen the easier it will become to understand.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 17th, 2012 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and ngöndro
Content:
heart said:
Depends on what you mean by independent, Dzogchen is always presented as a part of Vajrayana. "I am Manjusrimitra, who have attained the siddhi of Yamantaka." Anyway, nothing in this world is independent.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
But the siddhi of Yamāntaka means something very specific, beyond ideas of what Vajrayāna is (and notions of Dzogchen too for that matter). Yamāntaka is the terminator of death and he conquers death by seeing the unreality of birth, so the siddhi of Yamāntaka is the direct realization of unborn non-dual perfection. Both birth and death are ideas, predicated on the existence of a subject. That is why you see Yamāntaka trampling images of the buddha and other deities, he's passed beyond clinging to them and abides freely in the simplicity of the natural state. The illusory manifestation of attachment and aversion is the ignorance that binds us. Mañjuśrīmitra, by discovering his true nature has passed beyond attachment (or aversion) to methods, ideas, concepts, they no longer govern his actions, they're merely ornaments. So I don't think that Mañjuśrīmitra is implying that his realization is fused with Vajrayāna, or that Dzogchen is inseparable from Vajrayāna.

Alan Watts discusses the iconography of Yamāntaka in this lecture on death:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioO-Pw_lxbI


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 16th, 2012 at 10:10 AM
Title: Re: Dependent Origination and Lhundrup
Content:
Sherab said:
Horizontal aspect of DO manifests as causal chain and when examine, points to impermanence of all phenomena.
Vertical aspect of DO when examine, points to sunyata.

In Dzogpa Chenpo, lhundrup is more fundamental than DO.  Because of lhundrup, there is DO.

What do you think?

krodha wrote:
I recall the other discussion on dependent origination where these concepts of horizontal and vertical D.O. came up. Did you come up with this distinction? Upon re-reading that other conversation after the fact it seems I misunderstood the distinction between these notions. What aspects of dependent origination do "horizontal" and "vertical" represent? Can you please thoroughly explain these distinctions if they are going to be such a fundamental piece of this thread? Thanks

Is Horizontal D.O. essentially something like Candrakīrti's sevenfold reasoning with the chariot?

Aren't both essentially pointing at śūnyatā?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 16th, 2012 at 9:41 AM
Title: Re: Father Francis Tiso Dzogchen & Early Christianity Connection
Content:
krodha wrote:
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
- Mahatma Gandhi


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 16th, 2012 at 7:59 AM
Title: Re: Father Francis Tiso Dzogchen & Early Christianity Connection
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
And Gregkavarnos has mentioned that the Greek Orthodox Christians have teachings on Rainbow Body; which wouldn't surprise me, as I think that the Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian and Egyptian Coptic Christianity, etc. are all much closer to the teachings of the original Gnostics and Essenes.

Whereas Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are generally more of a deviation from the original teachings.  Not to say that these latter two have not ever produced genuine Saints....

krodha wrote:
Interesting, he briefly mentions the Protestant deviation in that talk. The roman catholics do have some interesting symbolism and iconography though, the vatican has a huge statue of a pinecone with two peacocks on either side in it's courtyard. Some believe the pinecone represents the pineal gland(endocrine gland associated with the third eye and transcendent wisdom) and also draw similarities between that imagery and the Buddha's bumpy pinecone looking head/hair. The peacock feather is symbolically used in dzogchen as well. Some also say the peacock eyes in the feathers represent the thigles in thogal practice. The pope also has a pinecone on the end of his staff he carries. Greg post some info on the Greek Orthodox rainbow body if you can!


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 16th, 2012 at 7:05 AM
Title: Re: Father Francis Tiso Dzogchen & Early Christianity Connection
Content:
krodha wrote:
It's from the last 15 minutes or so of the presentation (link below) he did on the similarities between the rainbow body of light and the resurrection in Christianity. What I wrote above is just a loose transcription of the latter portion of his talk. He has other presentations online too (I haven't checked out yet personally) and I'm sure they're just as good.

http://noetic.org/library/audio-lectures/the-rainbow-body-phenomenon-with-father-francis-ti/


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 16th, 2012 at 5:03 AM
Title: Re: some questions about dzogchen
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
In that case, if I go to certain people and start asking about them about the difference between fiction and non-fiction - what's real and not real you are going to arrive at different conclusions?..

asunthatneversets said:
It's not intellectual.

Wesley1982 said:
Wouldn't the intellectual part be one of the functions of the dharma?..

krodha wrote:
Yes but the actual essence cannot be apprehended with the intellect, only pointed to. So discussing what is considered fiction or non-fiction with someone really has no value when it comes to the fiction of our ignorance vs. the non-fiction of liberation. The natural state actually transcends all notions including fiction and non-fiction. It also transcends the four extremes of (1)existence, (2)nonexistence, (3)both existence/nonexistence, and (4)neither existence/nonexistence. So in other words attempting to truly understand it with our ideas and concepts is impossible. You have to know it innately, like you know you're alive right now.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 16th, 2012 at 4:28 AM
Title: Re: Who should attend DC webcast?
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
Re: Who should attend DC webcast?
I'll attend though I'd rather be there in person and practice sitting.

krodha wrote:
Well it's happening right now!
http://www.shangshunginstitute.net/webcast/video.php


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 16th, 2012 at 4:14 AM
Title: Re: some questions about dzogchen
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
In that case, if I go to certain people and start asking about them about the difference between fiction and non-fiction - what's real and not real you are going to arrive at different conclusions?..

krodha wrote:
It's not intellectual.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 16th, 2012 at 3:41 AM
Title: Re: some questions about dzogchen
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
a) So its about realizing the true nature of yourself in your natural state of existence? Something like that.

krodha wrote:
It's more like; this experience of being a separately existing physical human being, living in a physical world, suffering and so on, is due to the fact that we actually misunderstand the nature of this "reality". We take it to be something it isn't, and due to that error, we suffer. So dzogchen says this error is an illusion of our own making. We create this error through ignorance of the true state of ourselves and experience itself. The dharma as a whole is a means to experientially discover the illusion (first hand), and through seeing the illusion for what it is, it's immediately disabled. Some teachings are more direct than others, but no matter which method you employ, in the end, the direct discovery that it's an illusion is liberation.

So let's say (as a metaphor) that the ignorance(which obscures one's true nature) is a tree. In the leaves/branches of the tree are all sorts of things, just as in life there are all sorts of happenings and experiences. However we usually metaphorically always live our lives in the branches of the tree(ignorance) and because of that we suffer. Other aspects of the buddhadharma also say that the tree is equal to ignorance, but in some cases they appear to teach that one needs to begin dismantling the tree(ignorance) by sawing off it's branches one by one. Some teach that you need to get to the root of the tree(ignorance) and sever it there, but their directions to get to the root aren't so clear. In dzogchen the teacher begins by directly showing you the root, and he says "now here is your saw, when you cut through this root, the whole of ignorance will wither and die, begin sawing".

And the funny thing is that even the notion of sawing through the root is too much, the guru actually attempts to show you the illusory nature of both the tree(ignorance), and "the one who would do the sawing" right off the bat. But for some sawing at the root is needed, and that is appropriate. For others, sawing off the branches one by one is needed, and that is also appropriate. And still for others, plucking the leaves off one by one is needed, and that is appropriate. Some methods are quicker than the others, but ultimately they're all means to the same end. It all comes down to understanding the nature of the tree(ignorance), and understanding the quickest way to remove it. The fastest way is seeing that both you and the tree are illusory, but only a rare individual perceives that right away. Most have some work to do, and that's completely appropriate and perfectly ok, (we have to work within our respective circumstances). Though in that instance one needs to decide whether they want to pluck leaves, or saw at the root.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 16th, 2012 at 3:05 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and ngöndro
Content:
krodha wrote:
Really, we have to put ngöndro in the context of it's purpose. It's surely a product of it's environment, it comes from a culture where dharma is at the forefront and a cornerstone of the society as a whole (instead of being a voluntary extra-curricular activity). In Tibet, Bhutan, Nepal etc... when children came to a certain age they were most likely put in a monastery for education and the dharma was (and still is) obviously a part of that education. So a lot of kids who could probably otherwise care less about the dharma were put into these programs. For some it would be tantamount to your parents shipping you off to military school or something, you go and do it, but do you really want to be there? Most likely not. So as these individuals climb the ladder and get closer and closer to the higher teachings, to keep people away who aren't fully dedicated, an arduous practice like ngöndro was put in place to essentially say "well if you want this, show me how much you want it". Obviously the people who really truly cared and wanted the highest teachings (for the right reasons) would definitely go through ngöndro. Others who didn't care as much would look at it and say "100,000 prostrations? 100,000 vajrasattva mantras? No thanks!" And they would go off to do other things. So it's a safety net, to ensure that only those who are mature enough, and those who are sincere and genuinely care are receiving the high teachings. Because at the same time, we all know that dzogchen has elements which actually turn the lower yānas on their heads. There's elements which respectfully negate aspects of the lower teachings, such as causality, morality and so on and so forth. In the hands of an immature individual it's a dangerous thing to have and can spawn a rebellious attitude, nihilism etc. So in short ngöndro is a product of it's environment. In the west - since the dharma is essentially something that an individual has to seek out and find for themselves (instead of growing up around it) - those who take interest in the higher teachings are more often than not already ripe for it. By seeking out atiyoga and taking an interest in it (in a culture where not everyone learns of the dharma), one is essentially already equivalent to one who would voluntarily go through ngöndro to receive these precious teachings (in a culture where everyone is taught the dharma).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 15th, 2012 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
Also be mindful of the conceptual projections we place over phenomena. Watch the compulsive habit of labeling, good, bad, right, wrong, "I like this", "I don't like that" etc... Learn to experience without the judging and ultimately see how concepts and ideas are responsible for constructing ourselves/our world (the totality of experience) in it's entirety. The more you do this the easier it will become, just allow thoughts and other phenomena to flow and self-liberate. Don't chase or pursue fabrications of conceptualizing/day dreaming. After some time you'll begin to lose the boundaries between you and experience itself.

And then with the mindfulness like Sally mentioned, you'll begin to cultivate the aspects of your nature which are imperative for discovering that nature. Just maintain that flow, if you get caught up in thought bring yourself back. Don't be too tense, just relax and flow, see how everything is a spontaneous play.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 15th, 2012 at 3:08 AM
Title: Father Francis Tiso Dzogchen & Early Christianity Connection
Content:
krodha wrote:
I'm not saying any of this is true, but it's interesting nevertheless!

Father Francis Tiso, (who does a lot of thorough investigation on the rainbow body phenomena) has gathered some interesting information from gnostic materials and aesthetic literature such as the nag hammadi codices and drawn some conclusions between them and the Bönpo and Buddhist Dzogchen practices. The older Christian practices are still widely unknown, Father Francis says that if we limit ourselves to what is written in the new testament then we really don't get a clear picture of what the practices of that time were. This is because a lot of the teachings were passed down in an oral tradition. For example; how would one celebrate the eucarist? If you don't know how it was done by the apostles or accept a 3rd or 4th century text as normative, you would have to go back and search for examples of Jesus celebrating the eucarist. And what happens is you end up saying the words of institution and accompany it with some other prayers, but that is not the living tradition. Scripture was not written as a complete manual of how to do rituals, or sacraments, or meditation. So we are left curious about these practices which are largely a mystery to us today. Even in the gnostic literature or the nag hammadi texts, it is frustrating because they do make references to ceremonies, rituals, prayer practices, meditation practices, even mantra practices but they only mention them or elude to them without an in depth instruction on how to do them. So Father Francis took what he could from these gnostic materials (such as the nag hammadi codices or Merkabah) and has attempted to draw some links. Because literature like the nag hammadi codices were preserved by a community of christian monks, the texts were considered useful for whatever they were doing in their own meditational practices and were held in safe keeping for a reason. Father Francis goes on to discuss the figure of Evagrius Ponticus who became a deacon in Constantinople, got into some trouble with the lady of the court and then went to Jerusalem to become a monk under the training of Melania the Elder and Tyrannius Rufinus who had established what can be considered equivalent to a mystery school. They trained Evagrius who was already a very profound theologian. Anyways he went on to write a few books, one by the name of The Praktikos, which is essentially śamatha and vipaśyanā christian style (practice examining thoughts etc). Another being The Gnostikos which essentially advises the student on how to find a suitable teacher or guru. The last notable being Kephalaia Gnostica which are his chapters on sacred knowledge or intuitive knowledge. The Kephalaia Gnostica consists of 6 chapters, with 90 paragraphs in each chapter, in this book Evagrius takes you from the beginning of the path, through relationships with the teacher, through a very demanding column system with 540 columns to meditate on which leads to the point of attaining what is tantamount to the nondual state. The very first line in the book is "There is nothing over against the primal good, because it is in it's essence that it's good, and nothing could be contrary to that essence", essentially saying that we and what you'd call "god" really have to be a unity. So you see a monk which passes from radical renunciation, to an incredible embrace of all phenomena. Sounds a little causal for dzogchen, but may be some definite similarities between this and other buddhist tantric/contemplative practices.

Father Francis Tiso also attempts to make some further connections. Some of which are studied by a Belgian (who's name I couldn't decipher) who wrote a book called "The Formless Light" which was a compilation of Nestorian Christian writings from the areas of Iraq, Qatar and Iran in the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th centuries. Which is a bridge period between Evagrius and the rise of Dzogchen in the Dunhuang manuscripts of northern tibet from the 8th century. The monks who wrote these writings are kicked out of the Nestorian Church because some of their ideas are considered too radical. So Father Francis inquires, where did they go? He goes on to say that there are definite differences between the Dzogchen practices of the Bönpo/Nyingmapa and all the other tantric practices. The Bön and Nyingma say that Dzogchen is the highest practice, and maintain that it comes from the west from someone they call Garab Dorje. Father Francis goes on to describe Garab Dorje's history and draws some comparisons between his story and that of Jesus. Garab Dorje's mother was a nun and a queen at the same time. She is embarrassed by her pregnancy which is miraculous. Garab Dorje dies and rises again as a "good zombie" or Ro-lang (which are usually spooky but Garab Dorje is considered a benevolent Ro-lang) and various other unnamed similarities which Father Francis claims are in the biography of Garab Dorje. There indeed are all the stories of Jesus going to Kashmir but he claims this could be a much more reliable story. Could it be that Garab Dorje was a monk who was escaping from his Nestorian bishop? Or perhaps a community of monks who said alright, we're going to have to go out on our own, and began to insert themselves into the Vajrayāna world in order to live and keep their practices alive (which they knew brought them to the highest nondual realization)? Father Francis says he knows it would really blow the paradigms of the dzogchen practitioners if they somehow found out that their wonderful Vajrayāna practices actually came from Christian Egypt in the 4th century, but he says there are some interesting and definite correlations.

http://www.francistiso.com


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 13th, 2012 at 7:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of ChNNR for Newcomers
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
But charging $10,000 for a teaching is ludicrous, that isn't right IMO.

Malcolm said:
Bob was referring to a voluntary donation made to a Lama in order to sponser a teaching.

M

krodha wrote:
Oh ok, that a generous donation!


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 13th, 2012 at 5:13 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of ChNNR for Newcomers
Content:
krodha wrote:
I didn't mean literally telling someone to f*ck off, I wasn't advocating vitriolic behavior or suggesting that anyone conduct themselves in a disrespectful manner. There's just no need to bother with shark-like teachers squeezing money out of their students for every little thing. Not sure if your togal example is actually true... But charging $10,000 for a teaching is ludicrous, that isn't right IMO. I would seriously question the motives of such a teacher. We all know there's vultures out there who will take advantage of people if given the chance, well individuals involved in the dharma community aren't excluded. Even though it's a noble teaching which is meant to bring out the best in all of us, doesn't mean it always does. Humanity's dark side lurks in the shadows and preys on the innocent and it always will. And I don't say that to sound pessimistic because I'm an incredibly optimistic person, I'm merely being realistic, not all that glitters is gold.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 12th, 2012 at 11:32 PM
Title: Re: Pls introduce me to Dzogchen
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
a) Is the Tibetan dzogchen community a nomadic & travelling group?..

asunthatneversets said:
The lineages/traditions which kept the dzogchen teaching alive have been both nomadic and institutional. The original religion of tibet is Bön which yes was practiced by nomadic tribesmen (and non-nomadic I'm sure). Bön predates buddhism by 1,500 years, I believe? It was founded by Tonpa Shenrab. Bönpo dzogchen is essentially the same as buddhist dzogchen (and vice versa).

Bon was practised in Zhang Zhung kingdoms which were situated near Oddhiyana / Urgyen. Why do you think that Buddhist Dzogchen is the same as Bon Dzogchen?

Dzogchen has also been passed down in the buddhist tradition, mainly in the Nyingma school of Tibetan buddhism. I believe Vimalimitra received the dzogchen teachings from Shri Singha(student of Mañjuśrīmitra) and brought them to Tibet, where they were joined with Padmasambhava's and Vairocana's teachings to create the Nyingma school (consisting of Vimalimitra's Vima Nyingtig, Padmasambhava's Khandro Nyingtig and Vairocana's Vairo Nyingtig).

Dzogchen was also practiced by wandering yogi's who belonged to neither the Bön tradition nor Buddhist tradition and the Dzogchen teaching itself is said to have originated in the kingdom of Oḍḍiyāna (which is generally considered to be close to what is present day Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan).

To what tradition did those wandering Yogis belong or from whom did they got their Teachings?
I cannot agree with your statement that Dzogchen did originate in Oddhiyana / Urgyen. Garab Dorje would have lived about 58. Zhang Zhung is much older, so their Dzogchen would be older than that from Urgyen.
(I'm not scholar so if I'm off someone please correct me!)


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 12th, 2012 at 10:49 AM
Title: Re: Pls introduce me to Dzogchen
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
a) Is the Tibetan dzogchen community a nomadic & travelling group?..

krodha wrote:
The lineages/traditions which kept the dzogchen teaching alive have been both nomadic and institutional. The original religion of tibet is Bön which yes was practiced by nomadic tribesmen (and non-nomadic I'm sure). Bön predates buddhism by 1,500 years, I believe? It was founded by Tonpa Shenrab. Bönpo dzogchen is essentially the same as buddhist dzogchen (and vice versa).

Dzogchen has also been passed down in the buddhist tradition, mainly in the Nyingma school of Tibetan buddhism. I believe Vimalimitra received the dzogchen teachings from Shri Singha(student of Mañjuśrīmitra) and brought them to Tibet, where they were joined with Padmasambhava's and Vairocana's teachings to create the Nyingma school (consisting of Vimalimitra's Vima Nyingtig, Padmasambhava's Khandro Nyingtig and Vairocana's Vairo Nyingtig).

Dzogchen was also practiced by wandering yogi's who belonged to neither the Bön tradition nor Buddhist tradition and the Dzogchen teaching itself is said to have originated in the kingdom of Oḍḍiyāna (which is generally considered to be close to what is present day Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan).

(I'm not scholar so if I'm off someone please correct me!)


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 12th, 2012 at 8:49 AM
Title: Re: Pls introduce me to Dzogchen
Content:


Wesley1982 said:
I'm much more familiar with Christian practice than being a traditional Dzogchen follower.

krodha wrote:
You can also continue your Christian practices and even integrate them with dzogchen practice. There's no such thing as a "traditional dzogchen follower" you don't adopt a belief system or convert to a new tradition. And actually if you end up with something new that you didn't have prior to starting dzogchen practice (besides a new and profound knowledge of your own nature and an overall sense of well-being) then you're doing it wrong. Dzogchen simply points to something you've always been (and always had) which was only seemingly obscured. In dzogchen you dis-cover your innate completeness. You re-member your true nature. You re-collect your primordial perfection. Jesus can come along for the ride, he probably discovered the same thing.

Tiny baby infant Jesus in his golden fleece diapers.
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A0-u85aAYg


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 12th, 2012 at 7:49 AM
Title: Re: Pls introduce me to Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
You don't need to donate anything. If you want to that's great but spending money isn't a requirement. The community isn't there to get money out of people. You don't even necessarily have to be a member of the community, it's just nice because it has it's perks with access to archived teachings and you can also have access to restricted webcasts. But it's not necessary, I'm not a member of the community... But I have friends nearby who are so I have the option to go to their spots to catch closed teachings. If I didn't have that option I'd probably become a member, but I choose to give back by purchasing rinpoche's books from my local ling. Either way just know that spending money isn't a requirement and if you stumble into a community where they're trying to charge you money for every little thing and for teachings tell them to f*ck off. There's a lot of scammers out there who prey on people's devotion to the dharma, and they're the lowest of the low.

Even in circumstances where it seems unavoidable like attending a retreat in person, retreats can cost money. But most reasonable teachers will have a sliding scale for their retreats, if you can't afford it then they'll ask what you're comfortable spending, or they'll simply ask for a donation of whatever size you feel is appropriate for your circumstances. There's also the option of volunteering to help set up or clean up and that usually gets you in for free. I'll say this: if a community or teacher turns you away because you can't pay the full amount then they don't have your best interest in mind and they're looking out for their pockets. A true teacher will work with your financial circumstances, because bottom line... They want you to become realized so you can benefit beings.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 12th, 2012 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: Pls introduce me to Dzogchen
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
a) How do you help overcome what may seem strange,foreign,or unfamiliar to you?..

krodha wrote:
How else? Learn about it so it becomes familiar to you.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 11th, 2012 at 10:05 AM
Title: Re: Pls introduce me to Dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
And what would constitute a legitimate guru suggestion from jesus? Perhaps he's already showing you.


Wesley1982 said:
If that is true - then I could turn the home office into a place of devotion to studies and ritual meditation.

krodha wrote:
But of course. Lots of people do. Let wherever you are and wherever you go be your place of devotion to studies and ritual meditation. For example, one of the goals of dzogchen is to get to the point where you can effortlessly remain in the natural state at all times, even during sleep.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 11th, 2012 at 9:43 AM
Title: Re: Pls introduce me to Dzogchen
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
Maybe I'll ask Jesus and follow him to whichever Lama/Guru is best for me.

krodha wrote:
And what would constitute a legitimate guru suggestion from jesus? Perhaps he's already showing you.

What are you drawn to? What speaks to you? You seem interested in dzogchen, why not hear what it's about from a realized master? There's no commitment, many individuals receive teachings from multiple masters. It's not a blood in blood out type thing.

The only thing that truly creates a heart connection is when/if you choose to receive direct introduction. The teacher who gives you introduction will then always be your root teacher. But that isn't a blood in blood out type thing either.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 11th, 2012 at 4:46 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen "without Buddhism"
Content:
xylem said:
i once post a question to some dharma friends: "ok, so the lama is a buddha, and the buddha is omniscient, right?  so if i ask my lama how many species of otters there are in the world, he or she will know?"  it was interesting watching dharma friends scramble to cement up any uncomfortable logical implications.  that type of attitude isn't helpful.

-xy

Kelwin said:
Yup, I've been asking people the same question. Well, without the otters Not many practitioners,  of all kinds of different spiritual traditions, seem to have a good answer to this. And it's pretty damn fundamental to the whole thing we're doing, and to the way we should relate to our teachers.

krodha wrote:
The omniscience or "all-knowing" of a buddha isn't a kind of endless intellectual encyclopedia of knowledge, but I can see how this notion arises. In our relative condition we usually do associate a high degree of "knowledge" with a vast learned intellectual-rolodex capable of producing an accurate (account or) answer to any inquiry presented. This idea is born of a cultural proclivity to associate the term "knowledge" with the intellect, so "all-knowing" naturally gives most individuals the impression of intellectually knowing everything. And thus the reasoning unfolds as you suggested; "well if this person is omniscient they should be able to tell me what I ate for breakfast on March 13th of last year" and so on and so forth.

Granted there are indeed stories of meditation masters acquiring siddhis allowing them to read minds, sense things from afar etc... but these are merely relative powers which don't necessarily have anything to do with buddhahood. So these ideas of grandiose intellectual prowess are not what the knowledge of a buddha implies, and to impose these fabricated and limited notions (of what omniscience is) upon a true wisdom-holder really only becomes a disservice to oneself.

The mind wants to put wisdom in a box and attempt to grasp it's unlimited nature. And on one level this is ok, concepts are one of most proficient tools we have to communicate our ideas and that's a beautiful thing. But this beautiful capability can also become a double edged sword if we let our pre-conceived notions and presuppositions get the best of us, when that happens we become victims of our conditioning.

The all-knowing of a buddha is an intimate knowledge of what-is, through being inseparable from what-is. For a buddha, experience is whole and totally unfragmented, devoid of spacial relations between a subject and surrounding objects. Even though the intellect can still be implemented, the intellect itself is suffused with the totality and appears as a mere play of the natural state. Just as you presently know your own body by being that body, in buddhahood the vast expanse of non-arising timeless unborn perfection is known the same way. Even though it hasn't fully flowered to it's full potential, your present experience actually tips it's hat at being that way right now. An easy way to see this is by taking notice that in our relative condition, an object or experience's "being" is inseparable from your knowing of it. Remove the imputed designations of knower and known, and it begins to be subtly apparent how innate knowledge governs reality. The problem is that we get carried away by our dualistic imputing, carried away by the illusion of time and believing that moments sequence consecutively. The dharma is meant to cut through these self-made obscurations to reveal naked simplicity. Empty yet powerful, luminous, clear and unobstructed. Apparent yet unestablished, timeless, complete and perfect.

Edit: One other way this notion arises is with statements which resemble "there is nothing that a buddha does not know". Again, we usually give this to the intellect and all happenings/events within our concepts of time and space etc. But in truth a statement of that nature is pointing to the fact that a buddha, knows only what is seemingly present in the apparent here-and-now of experience (which they are inseparable from). So "there is nothing that a buddha does not know" means, presently what-is (in this timeless immediacy), is all that is, and all that is, is the unestablished non-dual wisdom of the natural state itself.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 11th, 2012 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Pls introduce me to Dzogchen
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
- Medicine Buddha Dharma - and a very broad,general introduction to the basics of Buddhism. Probably an orthodox Tibetan tradition.

krodha wrote:
All of which is compatible (and can be integrated) with dzogchen practice. And doing so won't compromise the integrity of the original practices at all


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 10th, 2012 at 1:35 PM
Title: Re: 'The Wheel of Existence'
Content:
krodha wrote:
Also known as "The Wheel Of Life"... Bhavacakra.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 10th, 2012 at 10:00 AM
Title: Re: Nakedness
Content:
krodha wrote:
This thread is officially NSFW.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 10th, 2012 at 8:59 AM
Title: Re: Pls introduce me to Dzogchen
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Illusion, it's all illusory.

Wesley1982 said:
If the idea "i" of the self is illusory, isn't a house still a house and a car a car and a tree still a tree?..

krodha wrote:
They are illusory as well. Of course if that stays on the level of the intellect then it's no better than believing things truly exist, it's a truth to be experienced and actualized. Nothing is what you take it to be. Everything is your own display, not you as "Wesley", but your primordial nature.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 10th, 2012 at 8:01 AM
Title: Re: Pls introduce me to Dzogchen
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
a) So . .What is the Dzogchen response to the "I" of self-imputed existence?..

krodha wrote:
Illusion, it's all illusory.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 10th, 2012 at 4:44 AM
Title: Re: Pls introduce me to Dzogchen
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
So it is not "new-age" but hundreds of years old from Tibetan traditions?..

krodha wrote:
Garab Dorje who is considered by most to be the first human teacher of dzogchen lived circa 55 CE, but some believe there were human teachers before him. Dzogchen is also said to have always existed, but that statement is meant to reflect the timeless aspect of the natural state, and that the nature of mind is essentially "all that is" (though it transcends the four extremes). Dzogchen is far from new-age, but "new agers" do commonly misinterpret it's message as mirroring their own teachings.

Garab Dorje
Mañjuśrīmitra
Shri Singha
Vairotsana
Vimalimitra
Padmasambhava

Are the originators.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 10th, 2012 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:


uan said:
really?  very linear concept. I guess we only have this one life then the flame goes out forever.

asunthatneversets said:
All concepts are linear.


greentreee said:
concepts are of mind,
as we move through precious time.
what's back there, is fine.

krodha wrote:
True. And for the record, concepts are wonderful... however the difference between a linear concept vs. a very linear concept is purely conceptual


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 10th, 2012 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:


uan said:
really?  very linear concept. I guess we only have this one life then the flame goes out forever.

krodha wrote:
All concepts are linear.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 9th, 2012 at 10:27 AM
Title: Re: No need for relative bodhicitta
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Compassion is a natural expression because all reference points are empty. It's impossible to pass judgement without a point of reference. Just like a mirror, or the surface of a lake both reflect without bias. The natural state is unobstructed and is completely perfect just as it is.

jnanasutra said:
This only address the Dharmakaya, or purity.  The Kayas and Vidya are naturally formed in the basis as the energy of the basis.  Compassion is not merely the state free from all reference points.

krodha wrote:
I never propagated a mere state free of reference points. The kayas are all complementary aspects of the same wisdom.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 9th, 2012 at 9:53 AM
Title: Re: No need for relative bodhicitta
Content:
krodha wrote:
Compassion is a natural expression because all reference points are empty. It's impossible to pass judgement without a point of reference. Just like a mirror, or the surface of a lake both reflect without bias. The natural state is unobstructed and is completely perfect just as it is.

That being said, we should still seek to exhibit noble conduct in the relative condition. The very first time I met my mentor he taught me "Inwardly conduct yourself with presence and awareness, outwardly conduct yourself with kindness and compassion."


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 9th, 2012 at 2:17 AM
Title: Re: Nakedness
Content:



Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 9th, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Title: Re: Anyone else bored to tears with this Dzogchen forum lately?
Content:
krodha wrote:
This board ebbs and flows, and I'm sure what may seem boring to some is very exciting to others out there, afterall one person's trash is another person's treasure. Peaks and troughs, everything balances out in the end (or if one views it from the right vantage point).


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, June 7th, 2012 at 5:59 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen "without Buddhism"
Content:
Karma Dorje said:
... In fact, those that argue this are arguing that Dzogchen is perhaps the unifying factor behind ALL religious experience, not merely that of Buddhism, are the ones that end up greeted with pitchforks and torches.

To me this has been a really eye-opening experience of the power of conditioning.

krodha wrote:
I'd say it's the unifying factor behind experience in general. It's one's natural state, simply the true state of this mystery called life. Some recognize it, while most do not. There's various methods to recognize it, but those methods aren't it. To me it's fairly cut and dry, you either recognize the natural state, or you don't. If you have recognized it, rest in that knowledge. If you haven't, there are various methods and means to do so (some more appropriate and excelled than others), but those methods and means are not it. The methods simply allow for recognition to happen, that which is recognized is always present (and always has been), it knows no limitation, not even notions of sentient and non-sentient. It cannot be produced or generated, it cannot be attained or acquired. The buddhadharma is beautiful and a wonderful method, but Buddhism is merely a means to recognize it. When you land on the shore you don't heave your boat over your shoulder and take it with you.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 6th, 2012 at 2:37 PM
Title: Re: Pls introduce me to Dzogchen
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
1) What is exactly is Dzogchen?..

krodha wrote:
Glad to see you inquiring about dzogchen. It's a beautiful teaching. Hope you pursue your interest... Teachers like Chögyal Namkhai Norbu have communities set up so that you can receive teachings and stay connected to the community/him through webcasts etc... (I know you've said having access to a teacher/community has been an issue for you due to your location).


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 6th, 2012 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: Dharma Wheel Etiquette Tips
Content:
duckfiasco said:
Don't get too attached to views and opinion. One of the most wonderful things about a place like this with people knowingly on the same path is the possibility to see things in a new way.

krodha wrote:
Good advice, and when disagreements arise the flawless exit strategy is to agree to disagree. Respect everyone's view even if it contrasts yours. For example Mr. Kavarnos and I have agreed to disagree a few times and it's a great thing, I think he's a wonderful person. Celebrate diversity.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, June 6th, 2012 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: Do Theravadins have anything similar to Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Anyone read this? I haven't read this personally, but there's a book called
"Small Boat, Great Mountain: Theravādan Reflections On The Natural Great Perfection"
by Amaro Bhikkhu.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 5th, 2012 at 2:53 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:


Dronma said:
Yes, there are different orders of the colors. The one which we use during the Purification of the 5 Elements at the beginning of every practice is taken by Kriya Tantra as Rinpoche has explained many times, i.e. blue, green, white, red, yellow. 
The correct order of the colors for Ati Guru Yoga is the following, starting from inside to outside: blue, green, red, yellow, white.

asunthatneversets said:
Yellow is on the outside, earth rests on water.

Dronma said:
I am sorry, but it is not!   
Please, check it again....

krodha wrote:
"Earth rests on water, water rests on wind (or "air"),
And wind rests on space;
But space itself does not rest on
These elements of air, water and earth.

Just so, our psycho-physical components, sensory elements, and sensory faculties
Rest on our karmic actions and emotional distortions,
While our karmic actions and emotional distortions themselves always rest
On our distorted psychic activity.

This distorted psychic activity
Rests on the purity of our mind,
Yet the nature of mind itself 
Does not rest on any of these phenomena."
- Uttara-tantra


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 5th, 2012 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Thanks man..I knew that they represented the 5 elements, was just curious as to why I have seen so many different ones...they all had the 5 colors just not in the same order. Thought there might have been a reason why they were in different orders.

Dronma said:
Yes, there are different orders of the colors. The one which we use during the Purification of the 5 Elements at the beginning of every practice is taken by Kriya Tantra as Rinpoche has explained many times, i.e. blue, green, white, red, yellow. 
The correct order of the colors for Ati Guru Yoga is the following, starting from inside to outside: blue, green, red, yellow, white.

krodha wrote:
Yellow is on the outside, earth rests on water.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, June 5th, 2012 at 12:53 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Fa Dao said:
Something I have been meaning to ask about for a while about the white A and thigle. I have noticed the color scheme is different in many of them. Does it matter what order the 5 colors are in when going out from the A? If so what is the symbolism/meaning?  Thanks

krodha wrote:
They represent the 5 lights or 5 elements resting on ones primordial nature. They're supposed to go (from the inside out) Ones primordial nature(White A), space(blue), green(air), red(fire), white(water) and yellow(earth). And you see Rinpoche wearing mostly yellow lately which helps his earth element stay grounded in the face of all his health issues in the past years. He also wears red for energy, you won't see him wearing many other colors.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 4th, 2012 at 2:24 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
cloudburst said:
No-one ever said "Truly produced."
I invited you to consult Madhyamaka masters as to whether or not there is dependent or relative production, you clearly did not bother.
That's no problem, I will demonstrate how it is for the benefit of those who read carefully.

Buddha, Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti all affirm dependent production and reject essential or "true" production. Here are some quotations for those who want to know what the actual masters say...

krodha wrote:
Ah yes, the actual masters... not that hodgepodge filth cited prior to this!

cloudburst said:
Buddha says in the Anavatapta-nagaraja-pariprccha sutra...
Whatever is produced from conditions is not produced; it is not intrinsically produced.
      Whatever depends upon conditions, I consider empty;
      One who knows emptiness is diligent.

and in the Lankavatara...
Mahamati, thinking that they are not produced intrinsically, I said 
             that all phenomena are not produced

in his Sixty Stanzas, Nagarjuna says
The supreme knower of reality
             Said that dependent production is not production

and commenting on that Chandrakirti says
When you see dependent arising, you do not see things as intrinsically existing. This is becasue the dependently produced is not intrinsically produced, like a reflection.

in the Avatara Chandrakirti says
Because things are not produced 
              Causelessly, or from causes such as a divine creator,
              Or from self, other, or both self and other
             They are produced dependently So. That's done.
They are produced dependently.

krodha wrote:
And as Nāgārjuna said above: dependent production is not production.

"The wonder of it! This marvelous, astounding event/reality (Dharma):
From that which involves no origination, everything originates;
and in that very origination, there is no origination!
The wonder of it!
In it's very enduring, there is no enduring!
The wonder of it!
In it's very cessation, there is no cessation!"
- Guhyagarbha Tantra

cloudburst said:
Here is an inconsistency in your view- first of all, let's leave aside that if questioned, you will in all likelihood claim not to have a view, while at the same time talking about your view and its inconsistency or lack thereof.

krodha wrote:
That is quite an odd thing to propose!

cloudburst said:
You say that
asunthatneversets said:
'there is nothing to accept or reject' means to reject the appearance of relative laws and so on would be an unnecessary (and futile/foolish) activity.

cloudburst said:
which means you accept the appearance of relative laws.

krodha wrote:
Certainly.

cloudburst said:
Even though you want to say that not rejecting does not mean accepting,

krodha wrote:
Not rejecting would naturally imply acceptance.

cloudburst said:
this is just sophistry, as you do accept that the laws of gravity function. Granted, you accept it conventionally, but as you correctly say, there is no acceptance or rejection, and nothing to accept or reject ultimately, so that's as accepting as acceptance gets.

krodha wrote:
I can accept that!

cloudburst said:
You want to get rid of the law of the excluded middle, but you still want to give reasons to back up your points and claim that
asunthatneversets said:
For the sake of communication we accept these conventionalities

cloudburst said:
while at the same time claiming
asunthatneversets said:
There is nothing to accept or reject.

krodha wrote:
I have no interest in getting rid of the law of the excluded middle, it serves it's purpose where it's applicable (which is most cases). And yes, this subject matter can appear quite paradoxical at times.

cloudburst said:
So, how's that? There are your own words.  "there is nothing to accept or reject" and ".... we accept..."   you claim that there is nothing to accept, yet you accept many things.

krodha wrote:
Yes it is quite extraordinary! The mind creates countless designations which give rise to countless aspects of experience, yet these aspects are inseparable from the root concepts which create them. When experience is filtered this way it actually appears to take on those attributes, and if we're not privy to the game we will actually think these characteristics are really there. It can no doubt seem confusing and paradoxical. I do not deny that I appear to accept and reject.

cloudburst said:
Does that really not seem inconsistent to you? If not, I guess I have to ask if you know what the word 'consistent' means.

krodha wrote:
It certainly appears inconsistent. There is nothing to accept and reject, yet acceptance and rejection appear to happen. Acceptance and rejection are the cornerstone of ignorance and a product of delusion. I still stand by my initial statement.

cloudburst said:
By the way, earlier in this thread Malcolm claimed that Madhyamakas reject logic. I challenged that assertion and asked for citations.
None were provided. I suppose one of the freedoms that one enjoys while not accepting or rejecting is that one need not accept that a failure to back up one's claims makes those claims seem a matter of uninformed opinion.

krodha wrote:
Seems you two are in the process of working that out right now.

cloudburst said:
it's more than just using words, to accept conventionalities, though, isn't it? Valid conventionalities mean something. If you transgress that meaning, you are demonstrably wrong.

krodha wrote:
The words are the conventionalities aren't they? Yes they imply a meaning, point to ideations, notions, etc... not sure if they themselves mean something, although they are commonly accepted to mean something and therefore by default I suppose one would appear to be demonstrably wrong by transgressing said meaning.

cloudburst said:
The 'position of the world' that Buddha et al say they will stay with is not just any position that is propounded, but valid positions. For example, although most believe in a creator god, Madhyamikas reject this, they do not "go with the position of the world" on nonsense, do they? They only do so when the position is unassailable, and is contradicted by neither another worldly cognition or an ultimate one.

krodha wrote:
Right.

cloudburst said:
Chandrakirti says
Unskilled in ultimate and conventional truths you sometimes apply analytical standards inappropriately and destroy the conventional.  
Because we are skilled in positing conventional truths, we stay with the world's position and we use it's conventional standards overturn the standards that you set so as to eliminate the category of conventionalities. Like the elders of the world we drive out only you deviate from the traditional standards of the world we do not drive out conventionalities

krodha wrote:
"By examining relative truth, establish absolute truth;
Within absolute truth, see how relative truth arises.
Where the two truths are inseparable, beyond intellect,
is the state of simplicity."
- Dilgo Khyenste Rinpoche

cloudburst said:
Unless you want to be taken seriously by thinking people. And you do want that, I can tell by your writing.

krodha wrote:
I do... so very badly. It's a burning desire like the fires of hell.

cloudburst said:
If you tuned up your investigation you would see that all is not equally illusory, becasue you would learn to understand and utilize the system of the Madhyamikas

Chandrkirti says Some dependently arisen things- such as reflections and echoes -
are false and appear to be false even to be ignorant.
Some things -blue and other forms as well as minds, feelings etc.- appear to be true.  
The final nature of things does not appear in any way to those who are ignorant.
Therefore that nature and whatever is false even conventionally are not conventional truths

krodha wrote:
Yes, that would indeed be common sense, there certainly appears to be levels and gradients of illusion, rights and wrongs and all sorts of designations within avidyā.

cloudburst said:
so we can see that there are correct, or valid conventional truths (of course ultimately these are falsities, but conventionally, they are valid)
and some things that are just false. If you think carefully, you will see that this also refutes the notion that things are literally illusions, as Chandrakiti juxtaposes reflections and echoes (two of twelve similes that appear in the sutras including "like an illusion," see Samadhiraja sutra for more....) with forms, feelings, etc, clearly differentiating things that are false conventionally and conventional truths, (which are false from the point of view of the ultimate)

krodha wrote:
"Like mistakenly seeing a rope as a snake,
with these varied appearances
we perceive them as what they are not,
giving rise to the duality of externality and internality,
i.e. the material environments and life forms therein.

However, upon scrutiny only the rope itself is found - 
These environments and life forms are primordially empty,
as the ultimate only seems to have such concrete form 
within the dissimulating process of the conventional.

The perception of a snake is phenomenologically true in terms of our seeing it as so,
but seeing the rope instead is authentically true;
analogically, it is like the appearance of a bird on a promontory:
The nature of these two truths is that
this transitory world is merely conventional dissimulation,
which the authentic reality has no relationship to - 
In the expanse of emptiness
everything is free within it's essence."
- Garland of Precious Pearls Tantra

cloudburst said:
Mipham says To engage the mind that ascertains without error
The nature of the two truths,
You should supremely establish the good eye
Of the two stainless valid cognitions

Cahndrakirti says We therefore posit that the world knows objects with four valid cognitions

So you should know that Prasangikas do accept valid cogitions (and thus logic, of course!)
Let's look at some of these valid conventions.....

Chandrakriti's commmentary on Aryadeva's 400
Incorrect position :
Aryadeva means that compounded phenomena lack production because this analysis refutes all forms of production.
Reply: In that case the production of compounded phenomena would not be like a magicians illusion rather we would make it understood using examples such as the son of a barren woman.  Wary of the absurd implication that dependent arisings would not exist we avoid such comparisons. Instead we compare the production of things to a magicians illusion and so forth, examples that do not contradict dependent arising

Here production is likened to a Magician's illusion. Chandrakirti "compares" the production of things to a magician's illusion. If everything actually were a magician's illusion, who is the magician? If you say "you are!" or "the mind!" then you make my point for me, as this is obviously metaphor.

Chandra's 400 commentary
What is the meaning of dependent arising? It means the absence of intrinsic existence; it means no intrinsically existent production; it means the arising of effects whose nature is similar to a magicians illusion,  a mirage a reflection, a phantom city and emanation or a dream ; it means emptiness and selfless

"Whose nature is similar." Similar. Simile. It's a simile. Things are similar to a magician's illusion. The illusion is a simile.... things are like an illusion, like a water bubble, like a city of ghosts....
Your bed is not a city of ghosts. Your computer is not a water bubble. Your being schooled by Chandrakirti is not an illusion. It is like an illusion.....
You can understand quotations that say things are illusions in the same way, sometimes masters drop the qualifier when the meaning has been clearly established by context. Look into it. The Lanakavatara quotation above (...thinking that they are not produced intrinsically, I said that all phenomena are not produced.") is a fine example of this.

krodha wrote:
So what are we disagreeing on again?

asunthatneversets said:
so striving for the clarity of thought is a futility married to an illusion...

cloudburst said:
I'm sure you, or at least others, can see how this attitude reflects itself in your thinking.
Why do you think Buddha gave thousands of discourses that were unbelievably precise?
Why did Nagarjuna takes such pains to refute objections?
Why did Chandrakirti comment on these so extensively?
Why did Longchenepa and Jamgon Kongtrul write thousands of pages of text full of intellectual rigor?
It was to clarify, and it is a beautiful thing.

krodha wrote:
It certainly is a beautiful thing.

cloudburst said:
I think many of the things you say may be accepted (while of course not being accepted or rejected) on the dzogchen forum,

krodha wrote:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKpnZ7cwWuY

cloudburst said:
but in discussions that are explicitly Buddhist, you will be challenged and refuted.

krodha wrote:
And refuted!

cloudburst said:
I personally think you have not put much time into studying classical Buddhism. There's not necessarily a fault in that, don't get me wrong, but it leaves your discussion limited.....

krodha wrote:
Ok I'll take it into consideration! Valiant effort in your response by the way!


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, June 4th, 2012 at 8:28 AM
Title: Re: Do Theravadins have anything similar to Dzogchen?
Content:
retrofuturist said:
Greetings,
Taking up the invitation to clarify a few points from a Theravada point of view...

xabir said:
No, what you described as the goal of Theravada is not in fact the goal of Theravada, but stream entry, the first stage (out of four) along the path to liberation....

krodha wrote:
Thanks for clarifying! Much appreciated


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 3rd, 2012 at 10:30 AM
Title: Re: Buddha on Romantic Relationships - Personal Empirical Observ
Content:
Andrew108 said:
Yes true my desire to attain liberation is mere words. Running after goals like liberation just makes me tired.
O.k true story time. Friend wanted to do 3 year retreat. Friend had a girlfriend. Girlfriend got pregnant before friend started retreat. Friend decided to do retreat. Friend left girlfriend to bring up baby by herself. Friend has rejected baby because of buddhist conditioning and his desire to attain liberation. Friend does lots of retreat. Still hasn't gained liberation. Baby misses having an involved father.
So look and you can see that the messy world of relationships can be valuable for your practice. Why? Above all why? If you hold on to concepts about a person then you are not on the path. If you are able to breakdown your constructed view of a person and what they are like and everyday see them in a fresh way then you are self-liberating concepts about that person and you are doing something yogic - you are on the path. You are practicing by looking at the illusory nature of the person you are attracted to. Baby is doing well because you don't hold onto concept 'baby'. Girlfriend or husband are doing well because you don't hold on to the decisions you've made about what they are really like. Everyday is a fresh opportunity to practice understanding the illusory nature of the appearance of family and friends and at the same time you are able to love. It's great.
But if you want to wear the coat of quotes and condition yourself then that's your business - may be there will be some value in that.

krodha wrote:
That's wild. Your friend exhibits a grave misunderstanding of the teaching there. I agree with you on your view of relationships.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, June 3rd, 2012 at 10:02 AM
Title: Re: Do Theravadins have anything similar to Dzogchen?
Content:
krodha wrote:
I'm fairly certain that dzogchen starts where Theravāda seeks to finish. In Theravāda one works towards having a genuine experiential understanding of nirvana, however that experience is usually non-abiding. So in Theravāda buddhahood is known, and the residual effects have lasting implications, but after awhile afflicted perception re-emerges (I'm sure not in all cases). So it's essentially a genuine flash of insight which establishes the true knowledge of realization but that flash more often than not is just that (a temporary glimpse).

In dzogchen the guru seeks to introduce the student to that flash of insight right away. And then from there the student cultivates that view so that it flowers into perfect and fully abiding buddhahood (affliction never re-emerges). In Theravāda the student works towards having that flash of insight and in dzogchen the master directly introduces it immediately.

Another thing being that Theravāda clearly has aspects of renunciation, in that certain qualities and aspects of experience are seen as obstacles and are avoided. Dzogchen integrates everything without establishing a duality between good/bad, right/wrong (when it comes to the essential view). Dzogchen only differentiates between ignorance (Avidyā/ma-rigpa) and wisdom (Vidyā/rigpa).

Shamatha and vipaśyanā are both shared practices for nurturing correct view.

If I'm off-base at all retrofuturist please correct me


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 2nd, 2012 at 5:51 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
I'd wear one of those hats.... I almost bought one a lady was selling at a little tibetan shop last year. I have a friend who wears those little disc things with the straps they're wearing, I forget what they're called... he has a Guru Rinpoche one and a Samantabhadra one... stylin' and wylin'.

Lhug-Pa said:
You should have seen the Tibetan hat that I rocked for a couple of winters. I can't even find one in a Google image search, but the tassles on each side stood up instead of hanging down, it was ridiculous.

The new style: Bubble-goose coats and Wallabee Clarks or Timberland boots with mad different styles of Himalayan hats.

krodha wrote:
Thugged out.

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gCU5uplB4A

What about this dude.

Throat singing growl into a OM AH HUNG in the beginning, rapping/singing... he puts on a good show even though the audience looks halfway horrified.
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnCYx2fswQQ

Savagely

Mr. G's about to put this on lockdown for 3 incalculable eons.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 2nd, 2012 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
I'd wear one of those hats.... I almost bought one a lady was selling at a little tibetan shop last year. I have a friend who wears those little disc things with the straps they're wearing, I forget what they're called... he has a Guru Rinpoche one and a Samantabhadra one... stylin' and wylin'.

Dronma said:
Well, you just gave me inspiration....     
Maybe I'll go out totally naked with sandals on my feet (Greek style), a Damaru on the one hand and a Bell on the other, a big Purba hanging on my belt (yes, naked with a belt and sandals!), and a HUGE Christian Cross as a pendant......

krodha wrote:
I just go out dressed like this:


...no big deal.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 2nd, 2012 at 3:42 AM
Title: Dzogchen, Buddhism and culture
Content:
Dronma said:
Of course, I shall not go out in the streets be dressed like that either:

krodha wrote:
I'd wear one of those hats.... I almost bought one a lady was selling at a little tibetan shop last year. I have a friend who wears those little disc things with the straps they're wearing, I forget what they're called... he has a Guru Rinpoche one and a Samantabhadra one... stylin' and wylin'.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 2nd, 2012 at 3:12 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
(Edit: I guess this whole back and forth between muni and I has been a misunderstanding, I unfortunately have a difficult time understanding her. We had been agreeing and I misinterpreted it as something else... so... I have apologized and nevermind all of this.... carry on you institutional buddhism yea-sayers and naysayers!)

muni said:
Sorry, adding concepts brings no clarity in misunderstanding.

krodha wrote:
For some, a concept or an idea may be exactly the right thing they need to push them into the right view. Some may have spent years meditating wrong, or years misunderstanding the right view to maintain. And then upon hearing something, or reading something they may suddenly gain a flash of genuine insight which corrects their view. Not to label it a phase; but I too spent some time denying concepts and ideas... "this and that is just a concept", "this and that is just an idea", I can remember my mentor just laughing at me, he didn't push me because he knew it was just a phase, and he said all he could do was hope that it passed quickly. It's called clinging to the absolute.

"All discursive thoughts are emptiness,
and the observer of emptiness is discursive thought.
Emptiness does not destroy discursive thought,
and discursive thought does not obstruct emptiness."
- Jamyang Dorje

"To cling to a concrete reality is to be as dumb as an ox;
but clinging to emptines is even dumber."
- Saraha

"When I began, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers; when I penetrated deeply, mountains were no longer mountains and rivers were no longer rivers; and when I had finished, mountains were again mountains and rivers again rivers."
- Old Zen Proverb

"When an ordinary person realizes it,
she is a sage.
When a sage realizes it,
he is an ordinary person."

muni said:
Dzogchen is master-student.

krodha wrote:
And a master-student knows no limitations.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, June 2nd, 2012 at 12:59 AM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
muni said:
"Samsara is the tendency to find fault with others". Naropa

"In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true".
Buddha

"Equanimity means feeling neither hatred for enemies nor attachment to loved ones, but instead, feeling love and compassion for all beings equally".

asunthatneversets said:
While you, yourself, are finding fault with others for finding fault with others.

muni said:
I see that is about the dog tail. Please it is exactly that what keeps it going on: the object-subject confusion which cannot maintain nondual contemplation. Me and you separation.

Sorry dear, no wrong "you". It is only  my mistake.

krodha wrote:
I have a hard time understanding what you are saying most of the time, but as far as this thread goes, I was merely calling bullsh*t on jnanasutra for exhibiting the same behavior he was condemning, and now you're pretending to be above judgement while judging others for their judgements. These are the subtle games the mind plays. It subconsciously projects itself. I never claimed to be perfect, but I am aware of my projections and am fully conscious of my mudslinging.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 1st, 2012 at 11:55 PM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
muni said:
"Samsara is the tendency to find fault with others". Naropa

"In the sky, there is no distinction of east and west; people create distinctions out of their own minds and then believe them to be true".
Buddha

"Equanimity means feeling neither hatred for enemies nor attachment to loved ones, but instead, feeling love and compassion for all beings equally".

krodha wrote:
While you, yourself, are finding fault with others for finding fault with others.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 1st, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
[You are speaking from the POV of mind as well. And there's nothing wrong with that, so don't pretend there is.

Realize that mind is the only instrument you have to gauge, measure and judge. Every expression of acceptance or rejection is mind, even rejecting the sharing of ideas. You do not reside beyond mind.


muni said:
The dog is free to chase behind its tail without rejecting or accepting its tail.

krodha wrote:
My parents dog tries to sneak around and eat cat sh*t out of the litter box whenever he can get away with it.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, June 1st, 2012 at 2:35 PM
Title: Re: Institutional Buddhism
Content:
jnanasutra said:
you people are nuts! seeing Dharmata doesn't even require much effort.  Everyone is blah, blah, blah with ideas.  so much mind...
conditioned by "buddhist" ideals, relax.

Simon E. said:
I would just like to make it clear that I would disassociate myself from this kind of attitude.
That does not speak for me.


jnanasutra said:
from pov of mind, sounds about right

krodha wrote:
jnanasutra, notice that the statements:

"you people are nuts! seeing Dharmata doesn't even require much effort.  Everyone is blah, blah, blah with ideas.  so much mind...
conditioned by "buddhist" ideals, relax."

And

"I would just like to make it clear that I would disassociate myself from this kind of attitude.
That does not speak for me."

Are both essentially saying the same thing.

You are speaking from the POV of mind as well. And there's nothing wrong with that, so don't pretend there is.

Realize that mind is the only instrument you have to gauge, measure and judge. Every expression of acceptance or rejection is mind, even rejecting the sharing of ideas. You do not reside beyond mind.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 10:30 PM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
What I don't understand is, if we are agreeing that the body isn't real, that it is merely an appearance or expression of the natural state; then why must it be destroyed for a chance of liberation to present itself? I'm not saying that there isn't a process which takes place in fully reducing appearances to their natural state, but the success of the process is surely predicated on correct view.

Paul said:
As in the Sogyal Rinpoche & Padmasambhava quote I posted and as pointed out by Malcolm in the thread I linked to, the dualistic mind is wind-contaminated tsal.
The Vajramala states very plainly:

The characteristic of the the element of air (vayu)
is the vayu (air) pervading the six cakras,
always present in the dharmacakra,
called pra?a since it pervades migrating beings"

And:

The wheel of vayu is explained to be pra?a.

And apropos of the Kalacakra citation in the last post it states:

Depending on upper or lower,
the major vayus, pra?a and apana are located.

Pra?a vayu is furthere defined in this text:

From the traces of the all-basis consciousness
arises the stream of consciousness;
the affliction [consciousness] is the pra?a vayu.

So at least in Buddhist texts these things are very precisely defined.
So discursive, dualistic thought is the movement of the element of wind interefering with tsal. There are good explanations of this in various other texts that I can point you to if you're interested. As far as I understand reducing this disturbance is the reason that yantra yoga, tummo, vajra recitation, karmamudra, togal's breathing methods etc. etc. exist as training methods. They put the winds and channels into the optimal, quiet state. Even the sitting in the 7 points of Vairochana is designed to have an effect on winds.

krodha wrote:
Which is the same thing I just said.

Paul said:
All you need to consider is the difference between these two situations:

a Dzogchen/Mahamudra practitioner that has recognised rigpa, but has to keep re-recognising the view to progress - which is nearly everyone who's ever done these practices

vs

a person who has died and whose elements have completely dissolved, where if they recognise the nature of mind for an intant in the bardo of dharmata, it's complete enlightenment with no falling back

As you mention: If rigpa is true and stable there shouldn't be any chance of being "kicked out" of it by anything. But how and why would rigpa not be completely stable at the time of first seeing it? Why wouldn't it be a permanant recognition, like it is in the bardo of dharmata? An unstable recognition is clearly the case for the vast majority of people who practice in their lives, so there must be a reason for this instability.

krodha wrote:
Proliferation of habitual tendencies.

Paul said:
So it's my understanding that the functions of the element of wind within a person's channels that is responsible for all these problems as it acts to de-stabilise the recognition of rigpa.

krodha wrote:
Ignorance is responsible.

Paul said:
And this is the crucial difference between a person with a body and person in the bardo of dharmata. If you tame wind whilst you have a body, you tame the mind and rigpa becomes easier to recognise.

krodha wrote:
Taming the mind is all well and good but it can become a distraction in and of itself. And it can lead to attachment to the calm state if one doesn't posses decisive discrimination. Truly, there's no more of a guarantee that one will recognize rigpa with a quiet mind vs. a mind in movement. If one remains in the temporary witness position, resting in awareness, thought just moves along. That awareness isn't rigpa, but it's the starting point, and remains unobstructed by thought, the important thing is realizing that you ARE a thought.

Paul said:
If there is a situation where it naturally dissolves (ie at death) then there's no barrier to rigpa if the practitioner knows that it's their own nature. In one moment of recognising in that situation and they become buddhas.

krodha wrote:
There's no barrier now either, apart from ignorance of course. There's no guarantee one will recognize rigpa in the bardo... I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket. It is the last resort.

Paul said:
Now although our experience of things changes, the essence of things being unreal does not - I absolutely 100% agree with you on that. All I'd addo to it is that from the perspective of practice - rather than an objective, absolute point of view - is that the elements are an illusion, but how strong that illusion is is dependent on illusory circumstances based on illusory elements. If this were not the case, then there would be zero difference between the experience of this life and the experience of the bardo of dharmata with respect to the ease of becoming completely liberated.

krodha wrote:
The absolute point of view is that there's avidyā and vidyā. Yes the solidity of the illusion directly reflects the solidity of avidyā. But for avidyā to decrease one must intimately know the face of vidyā through direct introduction or a flash of genuine insight, otherwise the path is founded on hope and conjecture. I cannot rely on the bardo. Go with the attitude that liberation will happen before the end of this life, for the benefit of all, and don't settle for anything less.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 7:52 AM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
Paul said:
If someone hasn't completely got rid of the ignorance that sees the five lights as the five elements, then they're going to experience matter. What I posted, and why I posted it, was to show the way the body - specifically the winds and channels - have an effect on the mind. When they are temporarily destroyed, the mind has a chance for liberation in the bardo of dharmata - as there's no possibility at that point to be kicked out of rigpa by ones own wind, then it's permanent buddhahood. If we have a body, then we are almost certainly not going to remain in rigpa and we have to rely on trekcho and togal to achieve rainbow body or transference body by gradually eliminating the ignorance that reifies the elements. Like the Guru Rinpoche quote: at present our mind is encased in a net, the net of the "wind of karma." And the "wind of karma" is encased itself in a net, the net of our physical body

krodha wrote:
Mind and body are intermittent states, it's not only the winds and channels which have an effect on the mind, but vice versa is also true. What I don't understand is, if we are agreeing that the body isn't real, that it is merely an appearance or expression of the natural state; then why must it be destroyed for a chance of liberation to present itself? I'm not saying that there isn't a process which takes place in fully reducing appearances to their natural state, but the success of the process is surely predicated on correct view. If rigpa is true and stable there shouldn't be any chance of being "kicked out" of it by anything. Sure the greasing of the channels and the alignment of the winds helps to produce an energetic equanimity which aids in remaining undistracted. Discursive thought is an expression of wind after all, and stabilizing these factors helps to stabilize focus, but genuine rigpa (once it's ascertained) is unassailable whether the mind is running a hundred miles an hour or is completely silent.

The ignorance which reifies the elements is one's own discursive thought which serves to impute (and create) "things" which are in truth are primordially absent. Trekchö and tögal are the cultivation and result of correct view. The net that the mind is encased in is the mind itself objectified as projections erroneously taken to be inherent aspects of experience. Again the "wind of karma" or "subtle energy of karma" (as Zurchhung Sheyrab Dragpa put it in that quote posted above) refers to conceptualization that invests sensory appearances with reality as objective persons, places, things, time etc. The "wind of karma" a.k.a. conceptualization (discursive thought) becomes further entrapped by conceiving itself to be a subjective entity which spans time and then identifies with the appearances which constitute "the body". And thus the field of experience is fragmented into a subject-object dichotomy and the habitual reification of this dichotomy engrains it into the very makeup of reality.

Paul said:
None of this at all implies that the body etc. etc. is real - but it certainly appears and has particular functions, such as those of the internal winds etc. that form the deluded mind. So our physical body does put a brake on our realisation unless we can learn to work with it in various ways.

krodha wrote:
Yes it certainly does appear and appears to have functions, that cannot be denied. But again, the internal winds and deluded mind are intermittent aspects and complement each other. The winds delegate the movement of thought, and thought conceptualizes a mind and winds etc. The physical body is an idea, it cannot put a brake on realization, only the mind does that depending on how entrenched it is in it's own delusion. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't work with the body I'm not denying that either.

Paul said:
It is describing the experience of death. It's taken from a chapter on the experience of the collapse of the elements into one another and how that then turns into the experience of the bardo of dharmata. And that's the experience of anyone who's not completely finished with illusion - and it's safe to say I've certainly got a bit to get rid of.

krodha wrote:
I've seen it interpreted both ways. I'm sure it's safe to say all of our paths require refining, respectively.

Paul said:
Have you read this thread? You might find it interesting: https://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=3979 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

krodha wrote:
I haven't I'll check it out, thanks

Paul said:
But anyway,

krodha wrote:
All of this is relevant IMO


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
Please, let's keep the bickering constructive, because otherwise the moderators are gonna shut this shop down and all of this is far too entertaining for that to happen!


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 31st, 2012 at 4:35 AM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
krodha wrote:
I'm still not sure why this would imply any type of materiality. Everything you've highlighted in bold is describing the nature of your experience right now in this very moment, it doesn't come to fruition at the moment of some physical death. Unless of course, the mind allows that to become a reality by continuing to proliferate the plagued web of it's own imputed ignorance.

Paul said:
When we are at last freed from the body that has defined and dominated our understanding of ourselves for so long, the karmic vision of one life is completely exhausted, but any karma that might be created in the future has not yet begun to crystallize. So what happens in death is that there is a "gap" or space that is fertile with vast possibility; it is a moment of tremendous, pregnant power where the only thing that matters, or could matter, is how exactly our mind is. Stripped of a physical body, mind stands naked, revealed startlingly for what it has always been: the architect of our reality.

krodha wrote:
If you can die right now, this very moment, by realizing that you were never born to begin with, then the body is freed into the expanse of the natural state. Karmic vision (compounded and manifold dualistic perception) is completely exhausted, any karma which could be potentially produced and established through the re-emergence of ignorance has yet to crystallize. There is a "gap" or space created by seeing one's true nature, fertile with vast possibility, it is a moment of tremendous pregnant power where the only thing that matters, or could matter, is recognizing exactly how our mind is, so that one can remain in that view. Stripped of any notion of a physical body, mind stands naked, revealed startlingly for what it has always been: the architect of our reality, for it had always been the deciding factor which established the erroneous notions of bondage and physicality which plagued our perception.

Paul said:
So if, at the moment of death, we have already a stable realization of the nature of mind, in one instant we can purify all our karma. And if we continue that stable recognition, we will actually be able to end our karma altogether, by entering the expanse of the primordial purity of the nature of mind, and attaining liberation. Padmasambhava explained this:

krodha wrote:
So if, at the moment of directly actualizing the emptiness of self and other, we have already a stable realization of the nature of mind, in one instant we can purify all our karma. And if we continue in that stable recognition, we will actually be able to end our karma altogether, by abiding in the expanse of the primordial purity of the nature of mind (which has always been present since beginningless time), and attaining liberation.

Paul said:
Why is it, you might wonder, that during the bardo state you can find stability by merely recognizing the nature of mind for a single instant? The answer is this: at present our mind* is encased in a net, the net of the "wind of karma." And the "wind of karma" is encased itself in a net, the net of our physical body The result is that we have no independence or freedom.

krodha wrote:
Why is it, you might wonder, that during this in-between "gap" state you can find stability by merely recognizing the nature of mind for a single instant? The answer is this: at present our mind is encased in a net (of it's own creation), the net of the "wind of karma" (a.k.a. conceptualization that invests sensory appearances with reality). The "wind of karma" has encased itself in an imputed net, which has subsequently given rise to another net - an apparent physical body. The result (of being carried away by this interconnected web of ignorance) is that we have no independence or freedom.

"The term 'consciousness' (nam-par shey-pa) refers to the unimpeded avenue for apparent sense objects to proliferate in one's perceptions. The term 'subtle energy of karma' (lay kyi lung) refers to conceptualization that invests these sensory appearances with reality. The entire spectrum of samsara is thoroughly established from the synchronicity of these subtler and coarser aspects of consciousness based on conceptual mind." 
- Zurchhung Sheyrab Dragpa

Paul said:
But as soon as our body has separated into mind and matter, in the gap before it has been encased once again in the net of a future body, the mind, along with its magical display, has no concrete, material support. For as long as it lacks such a material basis, we are independent—and we can recognise.

krodha wrote:
But as soon as the body has been seen to be empty, in the gap (of clear seeing: rig pa) before it (primordial awareness) has been encased once again in the net of a future body (ignorance), the mind, along with it's magical display (body/world/universe/time/space/etc.), has no concrete, material support. For as long as it lacks such a(-n imputed) material basis, we are independent (primordially unborn) - and we can recognize (this magical display to be our own, and abide in it's fullness).


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 at 7:48 AM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Oh ok, I'm still not sure about the term "materialistic" what attracts you to that term?



Paul said:
Dzogchens unique approach to what matter is, ie the quasi-panpsychism type view that Malcolm has been explaining for some time with his quotes from the Dzogchen tantras. Also, from a practical point of view, that the winds, channels and drops have a profound influence on our mind and ability to experience rigpa (which is the kind of thing that made me start this thread)
sounded like you were implying that we're stuck with these gross physical bodies which are almost cage-like to the point that they're a burden to work with. Such a suggestion would give the wrong impression to those seeking to establish correct view in my opinion.
I have read and also had it explained to me that the body can be something of an impediment to realisation because of its nature - something that isn't a problem in the bardo, where the body is of a different, subtle nature - hence one of the side effects being that the mind is much clearer there. I will look for some more info in my books, recordings and notes - that'll take time, though.

krodha wrote:
"I (Dudjom Lingpa) still think that my body is not merely a sensory appearance, for surely it came from my parents, who were it's cause and condition."

He (Longchenpa) said, "If you think that your body came from your father and mother, then what are the beginning and end of these parents? What are their source, their location, their final destination? Tell me!"

I answered, "I think that they exist, but I am not aware of what they are. It seems to me that a physical body without parents is not possible."

He retorted, "Consider this. Who are the parents of the body in a dream, in the bardo, and in the hell realms?" With that, I arrived at the decision that this body has never existed, being simply a sensory appearance....

..."...Furthermore, it is not valid to hold that any sensory appearances exist, assigning them to some hierarchy of higher versus lower, outer versus inner."

To this I responded, "My guru, then to what decision should I come? To what level of experience should I hold? I ask you, sublime guru, show me."

The guru replied, "At no time throughout the beginningless succession of lifetimes has there ever been actual birth. There has never been actual death, only the transformation of sensory appearances, like the shift from the dream state to the waking state. All sensations - seen, heard, smelled, tasted (etc.) ...are merely the mind being conscious of it's own projections (rang-nang), without their ever having even a hair's tip of existence as something else."

 ...."Throughout the beginningless succession of lifetimes, there has never been any actual experience of transition or going from one state to another, or any actual experience of being located in some other place. This is analogous to the images in a dream." 

..."It is an enormous flaw not to understand that what manifests as the body is empty, and instead to invest it with truth. This flaw is the consuming demon (za-dre), since the power of the efforts you make for the sake of the body eats away at the fruit of omniscience. It is the murderous executioner (shi-shed), since it provides the link from one cycle to the next in samsara, causing the appearances of birth and death to manifest. It is what cuts the life force (srog-chod), since for the sake of the body you are driven to seek happiness from clothing and so forth, and so you sever the lifeline of liberation with the fixation on attachment and aversion that perpetuates hope and fear. It is also what steals the breath (ug-len), since it robs you of the breath of lasting happiness. Therefore, all those who fixate on the apparent objects of the six modes of consciousness (tsog-drug) are like deer perceiving a mirage to be water and chasing after it, when not even an iota of an essence has ever existed."

- Dudjom Lingpa speaking to Longchenpa


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 7:13 PM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:


Paul said:
As described by Malcolm over a long time, and as can be seen from that quote by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, Dzogchen is very materialistic.



asunthatneversets said:
Not at all. The solidity of one's experience is congruent to the solidity of one's ignorance.



Paul said:
What I meant is that it's materialistic in the sense it's not Cartesian or idealist, quite different to a lot of other Buddhist views - but it's very clearly not at all realist. You seem to think I have a weird realist view of things, which I don't.

krodha wrote:
Oh ok, I'm still not sure about the term "materialistic" what attracts you to that term? I don't think you have a weird realist view, I try to avoid putting people into boxes like that. Maybe it was the way you worded what you said, but it sounded like you were implying that we're stuck with these gross physical bodies which are almost cage-like to the point that they're a burden to work with. Such a suggestion would give the wrong impression to those seeking to establish correct view in my opinion.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 5:44 PM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
Clarence said:
It just seems like materialism from my POV. How can being intimately linked or how can realization be dependent on the body be anything other than materialism? I guess I don't understand how that works. If Rigpa is dependent on the body, then if the body is gone, what happens to Rigpa?

Paul said:
As described by Malcolm over a long time, and as can be seen from that quote by Dzogchen Ponlop Rinpoche, Dzogchen is very materialistic.



krodha wrote:
Not at all. The solidity of one's experience is congruent to the solidity of one's ignorance.

Paul said:
If a person does not have any kind of experience with Dzogchen, when they die they don't recognise rigpa and their dualistic mind creates a new subtle material body that continues through the bardo. They then gain a new body in one of the six realms.

krodha wrote:
The dualistic mind has created this present body as well. This body is a product of ignorance.

Paul said:
If they recognise the display of the bardo of dharmata to be their own display, they are liberated. Being liberated in the bardo is much easier as rigpa is much easier to recognise because of the nature of the body - it doesn't 'weigh you down' as much as a gross physical body with its channels and winds. Practices like togal and yangti etc. use the body to overcome this limitation, though. This is why most practitioners who gain liberation do it in the bardo, not while they have a human body.

krodha wrote:
Physicality is a misnomer, this body is no more physical than a body in a dream or bardo. It's an appearance like a dream... All limitations are self-inflicted due to habitual tendencies. Thogal and yangti remove doubt/conditioning, what appears to be the transmutation of solid matter into the natural state is merely the removal of ignorance.

Paul said:
I really recommend reading through all of Malcolm's posts on this issue to clarify things.

krodha wrote:
I do too but I'm not sure if a materialist view is being propagated. I don't discount the fact that gross physicality is unbelievably compelling and seems 100% real but investigate this belief. The body in a dream can also seem very real and subject to compelling experiences.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 10:12 AM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
Andrew108 said:
The awareness in Dzogchen is different since it is not a manifestation of brain-based or nervous system activity. It's outside of time. Any awareness in our nervous system or brain is temporal and conditioned. When spontaneous presence (lhundrub) is talked of, one of it's qualities is that it is seen as unborn and outside of a temporal realization. I have had lots of doubts about this issue, but seem to have cleared them up at the moment. One great textural source for overcoming doubts is Longchenpa. Amazing Longchen Rabjam quotes from the 'Cutting Through the Three Times' by Garab Dorje (in the section discussing spontaneous presence):

''What is meaningful about awakened mind is that it is unborn.
It's unborn nature is spontaneously present.
The unborn essence is indeterminate.
What is meaningful about what is unborn is that it does not come into existence,
So the unborn, since it has never come into existence, is free of any time frame with beginning or end.'' p186 The precious Treasury of The Way of Abiding.

asunthatneversets said:
The awareness in Dzogchen is not different, it is this very awareness (although awareness isn't an accurate word in my opinion). The problem is that we misunderstand the nature of this awareness and mistakenly take it to be something it isn't. There isn't a brain-based awareness and then another separate one which has yet to be attained, if that was the case then buddhahood would be temporal (since it was something gained it could also be lost). Buddhahood is innate and atemporal just as this presence is innate and atemporal, neither are subject to cause and effect. The idea that there is anything existing (including an awareness) which is temporal is a product of misunderstanding. Lhungrub is an innate and natural quality/attribute of this present wakefulness, and the removal of ignorance only allows it to shine in it's fullness.

Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,
so vows and discipline are redundant;
the essence is always spontaneously present,
so any effort to find it is always superfluous;
self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,
so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;
everybody already lives on my level,
so there is no place to reach through purification....
- Samantabhadra

greentreee said:
first off, regarding the samatabhadra quote, what is it's source?

krodha wrote:
Keith Dowman's translation of Longchen Rabjam's Treasury Of Natural Perfection, although I don't know if this excerpt is part of the original text, Dowman added it in the commentary to make a point regarding the innate completeness of the great perfection.

greentreee said:
next, i think the translation has a minor flaw...where?  so far i can see is in it's incompleteness.

krodha wrote:
This is the text, it is accurate in what I was attempting to convey, complete or incomplete.

The pure mind, the ubiquitous essence - 
it is spontaneously, originally, perfect;
so strenuous engagement with the ten techniques
is unnecessary, superfluous.

My nature is like elemental space
(that all-applicable simile):
we exist in pure space, so we need not strive for it;
we exist as pure space, so space is all our striving;
and all-creating space transcends any exertion.
Pure mind, the ubiquitous essence, is like that,
so transcending all cognitive activity
I am inscrutable and cannot be cultivated.
All the ten techniques are likewise transcended,
so nothing can be done to affect me.
Those who try to approach me on a causal path,
desirous of catching a glimpse of my face,
seeking me through the ten techniques,
fall straight to earth like a tenderfoot sky-walker,
tumbling down due to deliberate effort.

I, the supreme source, I am the revelation,
and transcend every sphere of activity,
so a view of me cannot be cultivated,
and the ten techniques are meaningless.
If you still think that the ten techniques have purpose,
look at me, and finding nothing to see,
taking no view, remain at that zero-point.
Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,
so vows and discipline are redundant;
the essence is always spontaneously present,
so any effort to find it is always superfluous;
self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,
so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;
everybody already lives on my level,
so there is no place to reach through purification;
I embrace all and everything,
so there can be no path that leads to me;
I am forever incapable of dualization,
so there is never anything to be labeled 'subtle';
my form embraces everything,
so there has never been any 'duality';
I am self-sprung awareness from the very beginning,
so I can never be nailed down;
since I am the heart of total presence,
there is no other source of secret precepts.
- Samantabhadra

greentreee said:
again "gnostic" isn't really a specific term either, since it pertains to "knowledge, particularly esoteric knowledge" ,  it has a definition but it's rooted in another language with terminology that may or may not obscure the original terms used to describe that which the translator attempted to, fill the void, so to speak.  and yes i do consider dzogchen to be a form of esoteric buddhism.

krodha wrote:
Yes the term "gnostic" has been discussed on this forum, some agree with you that it doesn't accurately represent the intended meaning. I'm merely writing what is there.

greentreee said:
but to the other quoted text.  there are two levels of awareness, according to the mind only school.  there is the perceived and perceiving portions of our thought process.  the perceiving can perceive the perceived, but teh  perceived cannot perceive the perceiving.  sort of like hind sight!  you can't see what your seeing with what youve seen, you only see with what you see with, and the mind attempts to associate the objects and forms as they appear, and associations form.  once the mind starts associating, then the perceived portion of the brain begins to work in conjunction with the perceiving.  kind of like if you were to do something for the first time and there is no knowledge to rely on, but the second time around, the brain is using what it has already learned, which can be a good or bad thing, depending on the situation.

krodha wrote:
This isn't the mind only school. None of that applies.

greentreee said:
i'm not good at grammar but i think i got the tenses right!  in essence i think what that means is that we can see what we've seen, but what we've seen can't see!  ha, i'm going to start sounding like a crazy madhyamaka soon!  i joke

krodha wrote:
I would not interpret it as meaning that, I don't think it's attempting to say that at all, but you're welcome to your opinion.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 29th, 2012 at 9:02 AM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
Andrew108 said:
The awareness in Dzogchen is different since it is not a manifestation of brain-based or nervous system activity. It's outside of time. Any awareness in our nervous system or brain is temporal and conditioned. When spontaneous presence (lhundrub) is talked of, one of it's qualities is that it is seen as unborn and outside of a temporal realization. I have had lots of doubts about this issue, but seem to have cleared them up at the moment. One great textural source for overcoming doubts is Longchenpa. Amazing Longchen Rabjam quotes from the 'Cutting Through the Three Times' by Garab Dorje (in the section discussing spontaneous presence):

''What is meaningful about awakened mind is that it is unborn.
It's unborn nature is spontaneously present.
The unborn essence is indeterminate.
What is meaningful about what is unborn is that it does not come into existence,
So the unborn, since it has never come into existence, is free of any time frame with beginning or end.'' p186 The precious Treasury of The Way of Abiding.

krodha wrote:
The awareness in Dzogchen is not different, it is this very awareness (although awareness isn't an accurate word in my opinion). The problem is that we misunderstand the nature of this awareness and mistakenly take it to be something it isn't. There isn't a brain-based awareness and then another separate one which has yet to be attained, if that was the case then buddhahood would be temporal (since it was something gained it could also be lost). Buddhahood is innate and atemporal just as this presence is innate and atemporal, neither are subject to cause and effect. The idea that there is anything existing (including an awareness) which is temporal is a product of misunderstanding. Lhungrub is an innate and natural quality/attribute of this present wakefulness, and the removal of ignorance only allows it to shine in it's fullness.

Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,
so vows and discipline are redundant;
the essence is always spontaneously present,
so any effort to find it is always superfluous;
self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,
so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;
everybody already lives on my level,
so there is no place to reach through purification....
- Samantabhadra


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 9:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Finney said:
I'm looking ahead to the retreats over the next several months but can't figure out what some of them are about. Some I get the gist of (Samantabhadra, Garuda, Chenrezi, Longsal Longde, Chod, Zhitro), a couple I've been able to look up some info about (Jnanadhakini, Guru Dragphur) but there are still several that I know nothing about and can find no information on either. Can anyone help? Unfortunately, the list is longer than I'd like but any little bits of info (or pointers to where I can find info) would be most helpful.

The list:
Longsal Teaching "Jyodba Ronyom"
"Dzogchen Nallug" Teaching
Man-ngag Tag-drol Gyud terma teaching
Longsal Atií Nadzer
Longsal Atii Gongpa Gojyed
Longsal Atii Lam-gyi Ngondro
Longsal Atii Gongpa ngotrod teaching

Thanks!
Finn

krodha wrote:
Honestly there's probably no way you'll find anything on the longsal/terma teachings apart from purchasing the longsal books and/or receiving the teachings from Rinpoche... None of it's intended to be (nor should it be) public knowledge or publicly accessible. Good for you for being so interested in the teachings though!


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 28th, 2012 at 8:26 AM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
krodha wrote:
This lady Jill Bolte had a stroke which essentially shut down her brain... her ability to move, her speech, memory etc... but the most interesting part was that due to the location of the burst blood vessel in her left hemisphere she lost her sense of self-awareness too. She said that the left hemisphere was the most damaged and during her recovery the part that told her she was a separate individual remained shut off for some time. She couldn't tell the difference between her and her surroundings and felt like everything was an extension of herself.

"I am the life-force power of the universe. I am the life-force power of the 50 trillion beautiful molecular geniuses that make up my form, at one with all that is.”
- Jill Bolte Taylor

She spoke about her experience at TED:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

This thread also reminded me of a radio interview I listened to a couple weeks ago with a Neil Slade who researches the amygdala. He does exercises which stimulate the amygdala by doing visualizations of a feather tickling that area (which reminded me of the visualizations done in buddhism which I'm sure also stimulate this area). He claimed to have a ton of ways to stimulate these areas of the brain, (he didn't share too much because he was obviously trying to sell his book, but) I'd bet most of them resemble buddhist/vajrayana/dzogchen practices. He spoke of a friend who uses a tuning fork tuned to a specific frequency that is held to the temple which also stimulates the amygdala (which made me think of the sounding of mantras which I'm sure also vibrate and stimulate these areas of the brain). The stimulation over time seems to produce the same "popping" or "releasing" effect Paul spoke of which leads to what Slade called "sense of enlightenment" experiences.

"Having spoken with a number of successful people in various fields, Slade has determined that there are many ways to stimulate the amygdala. He recalled a conversation with Steven Snyder, a piano tuner who has worked with the biggest recording studios in New York City. Snyder told Slade that he activates his amygdala by striking a tuning fork and placing it to the side of his head where that part of the brain is located. Ultimately, Slade said, consistent stimulation of the amygdala over time can result in a phenomenon called "popping the frontal lobe," something he experienced six years after he began his research. Slade described it as akin to a sense of enlightenment and marveled that "it's the best feeling that you've ever had."

Link to the radio interview I heard:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/05/07


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 11:42 AM
Title: Re: real question
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Also, the exoteric aspect of "monotheistic" religions is actually mono-idolatry. They simply worship one invisible idol and call it "God". Not to say that invisible-to-the-physical-senses noumena don't exist. Nevertheless, to take a single invisible—whether existent or non-existent—noumenon and give it attributes of The Absolute, is mono-idolatry.

Wesley1982 said:
God isn't an idol. (I know it gets real complicated)

krodha wrote:
God is an idea, it has to be believed in. Any concept that the mind relates to (which can be accepted or rejected) is an idol. Christianity is highly involved in idol worshipping, though it loves to pretend it isn't. You'll disagree because you identify with the belief system in question, and in order to validate it, a label of idol worshipping must be denied at all costs. You have to protect it because it cannot protect itself... It can't protect itself because it's a concept/idea which only has as much power as it receives from those who believe in it.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
What's the context of the Karmapa's statement? Is he speaking of actual nyams of bliss? Or of the peacefulness of equanimity that arises as a result of correct view?

Paul said:
It's from his rebirth prediction letter.

krodha wrote:
I'd say the Karmapa is addressing the inherent joyfulness which is synonymous with ones natural state, being that the letter is so brief and that the next line is "the dharmadhātu is without center or edge" it would seem odd for that opening line to address something (considered) as mundane as a nyam.

But that doesn't mean we can't discuss the physiology of energetic movements in the body and their relation to blissful feelings. It's an interesting topic for sure.

In my opinion, western medicine has fallen so far from the mark with it's "mechanical" view of the body and world, that I doubt it would even have a valid explanation for such phenomena.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 4:54 AM
Title: Re: Bliss, Dzogchen practice and physiology
Content:
Paul said:
Self-awareness is always bliss -16th Karmapa

Bliss is one of the three nyams that can happen to a Dzogchen or Mahamudra practitioner. Thinking about this, this seems to be a bit odd - it's not immediately apparent why this should be.

So what is the cause of this from
a) a western medical perspective (if indeed meditational bliss has ever been researched)
b) from a Dzogchen/Tibetan medicine point of view - is it related to winds entering the central channel?

Also, in relation to the movement of winds, it's my understanding that bliss can rectify 'damaged' channels in the subtle body, or rather is the by product of the correction of such problems. Is this basically what is going on in this situation?

krodha wrote:
What's the context of the Karmapa's statement? Is he speaking of actual nyams of bliss? Or of the peacefulness of equanimity that arises as a result of correct view?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 26th, 2012 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Lhasa said:
Hi,
Would someone please point out the texts that apply to this current Longde retreat?

krodha wrote:
THE ROOT UPADESHA ON THE VAJRA BRIDGE OF LONGDE (Revised Edition?)
http://shangshung.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=74_75&products_id=535

LONGDE TEACHINGS - BASED ON THE ORIGINAL TEXTS BY VAIROCHANA AND DZIN DHARMABODHI
http://shangshung.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=74_75&products_id=262

THE ROOT UPADESHA ON THE VAJRA BRIDGE OF LONGDE
http://shangshung.org/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=74_75&products_id=279


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the concept of progress....
Content:
Andrew108 said:
The idea of not progressing is an obstacle. The idea that all progressing has been done is an obstacle. My intention is to progress and progress and progress and and .....glad I finally cleared this one up.

krodha wrote:
You're absolutely right, accepting (or rejecting) an idea that progression is meaningless (or meaningful) is surely an obstacle.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 4:08 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
"A fool deceived by magical illusion is like an animal
pursuing a mirage in his thirst for water;
expecting his delusive hopes to be realized,
trusting his dogma, he is trapped;
losing is way on the eight-fold gradation of intellect,
he fails to see the real meaning."
- Longchen Rabjam


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 4:04 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the concept of progress....
Content:
Andrew108 said:
I've been reviewing this thread in light of the huge Dzogchen and Buddhism thread. During the Dzogchen and Buddhism thread I came round to the view that contrivance is really important. Contrived practice and the notion of progress plays really well with the Dzogchen view. Just to have Dzogchen by itself with no progress to be made or just to be interested in 'my primordial potentiality' seems impoverished and more like an obstacle. We need these conceptual practices and ideas of progress because otherwise we might get 'lost' in Dzogchen. It's not right to only want the essence of the teachings.

krodha wrote:
"The pure mind, the ubiquitous essence - 
it is spontaneously, originally, perfect;
so strenuous engagement with the ten techniques
is unnecessary, superfluous.


...I am inscrutable and cannot be cultivated.
All the ten techniques are likewise transcended,
so nothing can be done to affect me.
Those who try to approach me on a causal path,
desirous of catching a glimpse of my face,
seeking me through the ten techniques,
fall straight to earth like a tenderfoot sky-walker,
tumbling down due to deliberate effort.

I, the supreme source, I am the revelation,
and transcend every sphere of activity,
so a view of me cannot be cultivated,
and the ten techniques are meaningless.
If you still think that the ten techniques have purpose,
look at me, and finding nothing to see,
taking no view, remain at that zero-point.
Nothing ever separates us from unoriginated simplicity,
so vows and discipline are redundant;
the essence is always spontaneously present,
so any effort to find it is always superfluous;
self-sprung awareness has never been obscured,
so gnostic awareness cannot be generated;
everybody already lives on my level,
so there is no place to reach through purification;
I embrace all and everything,
so there can be no path that leads to me;
I am forever incapable of dualization,
so there is never anything to be labeled 'subtle';
my form embraces everything,
so there has never been any 'duality';
I am self-sprung awareness from the very beginning,
so I can never be nailed down;
since I am the heart of total presence,
there is no other source of secret precepts."
- Samantabhadra


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 8:00 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
It actually is! That's him... Lama Drimed Norbu... He looks alot less Jewish with his hair tied back


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 7:34 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Mariusz said:
Have you found this master in non-Buddhism or non-Bon now in the world? It is necessary or not? Simply answer please.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 6:41 AM
Title: Re: Nyala Rinpoche Rigdzin Changchub Dorje
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
Maybe there's an old photograph of Rinpoche somewhere that has Changchub Dorje in it... this is one of the oldest photos I've seen of ChNN:



I'm sure taking photos was probably a rare occasion but you never know there could be one out there somewhere.

Will said:
I know next to nothing about ChNN - which one is he in this photo - the bhikshu in the center?

krodha wrote:
I believe so (but I could be wrong).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Nyala Rinpoche Rigdzin Changchub Dorje
Content:
Will said:
Thanks Sunny, I hope a photograph will turn up also.

krodha wrote:
Maybe there's an old photograph of Rinpoche somewhere that has Changchub Dorje in it... this is one of the oldest photos I've seen of ChNN:



I'm sure taking photos was probably a rare occasion but you never know there could be one out there somewhere.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 3:13 AM
Title: Re: how to stay awake during meditation?
Content:
Frank said:
how the hey now do you fall asleep in lotus or half? i mean i doze, but can't actually snooze.

krodha wrote:
The more you meditate the stronger your clarity will become, the strength of your awareness will increase. If you can, try being mindful throughout the day in all activities, remain relaxed but keep a sharp attention, try not to day dream... act like you're driving a car and have to remain aware of all that's going on around you. This will cultivate your mind's clarity, in time when you go to sit your stream of awareness will be unerring and unassailable, the dullness that causes you to tire won't be an issue.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 2:37 AM
Title: Re: Nyala Rinpoche Rigdzin Changchub Dorje
Content:



Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 25th, 2012 at 2:06 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and karma?
Content:
krodha wrote:
"Earth rests on water, water rests on wind (or "air"),
and wind rests on space; but space itself does not rest on these elements of air, water, and earth.

Just so, our psycho-physical components, sensory elements, and sensory faculties
rest on our karmic actions and emotional distortions,
while our karmic actions and emotional distortions themselves always rest on our distorted psychic activity.

This distorted psychic activity rests on the purity of our mind,
yet the nature of the mind itself does not rest on any of these phenomena."
- The Unsurpassed Continuity


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 3:02 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and karma?
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
Haha yep. Pema Rigdzin has been on fire lately.

And I laughed my ass off at your recent Eddie Murphy and OMG-Becky posts, BTW.

Anyway,

krodha wrote:
Ha glad my humor struck a chord, I was hoping at least a couple people smiled... And I agree lots of good posts on this board lately


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 1:45 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and karma?
Content:



Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
A.k.a Mind series, space series and secret instructions


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 7:21 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and karma?
Content:


heart said:
No, it is definitely a interpretation that seems more grounded in common sense and psychology than any understanding of Dzogchen.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
So are you sponsoring the view that karma exists as a external/universal law? And that it indeed acts as a form of control in delegating moral justice and retribution based on one's actions? Following up on my question above; what is your view? Being that there was multiple facets of karma addressed, which aspect (or theme) are you so adamately and diametrically opposed to?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 24th, 2012 at 2:28 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and karma?
Content:
krodha wrote:
There seems to be a few themes in the excerpt that could be interpreted as controversial... Which one is in question? The cosmic moral retribution? The absence of karma as an external, eternal, constant and universal law? The view that karma arises out of habituation? All of it?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 9:14 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
"Since the magical illusion of origination occurs within what has no origin, it is the ordinary confused mind that characterizes things as involving causality. What the ati approach reveals as the absence of causes or conditions makes eminently perfect sense, although it is unacceptable in lower approaches.

The intent and conduct of buddhas and ordinary sentient beings are not separate, so it is the ordinary confused mind that holds saṃsāra and nirvāṇa to be a duality. What the ati approach reveals as nondual makes eminently perfect sense, although it is unacceptable in lower approaches. 

Given the freedom in which it is irrelevant whether or not one has realization, to believe that freedom comes about through realization is the enemy of equalness. What the ati approach reveals as a single state of equalness makes eminently perfect sense, although it is unacceptable in lower approaches. 

To hold that one cannot realize the inexpressible without relying on specific means to characterize it is a fool's attitude. What the ati approach reveals as inseparability from the ultimate makes eminently perfect sense, although it is unacceptable in lower approaches.

Although great perfection is timeless and infinite, without fixed depth or extent, to claim that it is 'unfathomable' is a fool's attitude. What the ati approach reveals as a boundless, unique state makes eminently perfect sense, although it is unacceptable in lower approaches."

- Longchenpa


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
mzaur said:
Then you haven't understood the essence of Dharma. Emptiness is the insight which liberates, not a meaningless concept. Ramana Maharshi would would cling to the Self and sink into a vegetative state for weeks so that his disciples would have to feed him and wipe his butt. Are you saying Maharshi lacked direct experience? He had plenty of it.

Karma Dorje said:
This ranks with the most foolish things I have read on this forum.  Ramana experienced nirvikalpa samadhi for long stretches during his youth.  This is not the "vegetative state" known as jada samadhi .  Instead, this is exactly the same as bringing the winds into the central channel at the heart and remaining there.  It is a state of deep realization.  He did not have disciples at this time.. he was a simple sadhu living in a temple in Tiruvannamalai.  Some of the other sadhus would look after him as he would get picked on by neighbourhood children.

When Ramanashram grew up around him, he constantly met with devotees and taught.   There was no point during this period he spent weeks in nirvikalpa samadhi incapacitated.

Why put others down whom you have neither met nor understood?  Surely that contravenes the bodhisattva intention (and basic human decency).

krodha wrote:
He also stated that sahaja samadhi is the true state which is unbroken and permanent.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 22nd, 2012 at 4:40 PM
Title: Re: how to stay awake during meditation?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Getting drowsy while meditating can happen for lots of reasons, could be a sign that you're too relaxed, finding that balance is key. If you get tired then intensify your focus, if you're too tense then ease up. Make sure you're choosing times during the day/night which are conducive for staying awake. Keep your eyes open, if you get tired then try focusing on an object and pretend you're going to pierce right through it with your gaze. If that doesn't work get up and walk around for a bit, do some stretches etc... A warm room could put you to sleep so a moderate to cool environment works best. Perhaps try to meditate away from areas you usually associate with sleep/rest.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 6:31 AM
Title: Re: Haunted Areas and Localized Entities, Ghosts, Energy
Content:
Andrew108 said:
If there's still a horse and cart then what has been let go of? Certainty is the point were letting go just feels uncontrived. For a lot of madhyamakans certainty is the realization and they test that in all sorts of strange situations.

krodha wrote:
Not horse and cart, "horse and rider" is a metaphor used to describe the (sometimes extremely) subtle subject-object dance that occurs on the path. A big way it manifests is as ego and non-ego and dichotomies of that nature. Anywhere there is a rider controlling the process(horse) the view has been missed, it's a subtle duality. So this goes back to that "progress" thread where even the idea that letting-go can be uncontrived still suggests that there is indeed letting-go to do (which there is, don't get me wrong), but it is the nature of the process (and how it's related to) that either binds or liberates. And the true certainty comes with the first glimpse of realization, which is anattā, that certainty is unshakable, unassailable and solid as a rock.

"Meditation is not foremost, realization is foremost;
If realization is not entered with confidence,
The meditator is merely meditating on a conceptual state,
The seeker is seeking with an afflicted clinging."
- kun tu bzang po che ba la rang gnas pa

"If you think you have a lower self (or an ego) to get rid of, and then you fight against it, nothing strengthens the delusion that it exists more than that. So this tremendous schizophrenia in human beings of thinking that they are rider and horse, soul in command of body, or will in command of passions... wresting with them, all that kind of split thinking simply aggravates the problem, and we get more and more split. So we have all sorts of people engaged in an interior conflict which they will never ever resolve. Because the true self; you either know it or you don't. If you do know it, then you know it's the only one and the other (so-called lower self) ceases to be a problem. It becomes something like a mirage, and you don't go around hitting at mirages with a stick or trying to put reigns on them. You just know they're mirages and you walk straight through them."
- Alan Watts

Andrew108 said:
It's as much a radical path as institutionalized Dzogchen. We are often mesmerized by quite deeply hidden impulses and these need to be cut through in order for recognition to come about. All of this you know. If you think ghosts somehow exist outside you then perhaps you are not cutting these impulses? I'm surprised you take ghosts to be something external since you demonstrate a really fine understanding of the dharma.

krodha wrote:
I don't take ghosts to be any sort of phenomena like that (external/internal or objective/subjective), that was the main point of my post. Because they are projections (projection meaning an emanation of ignorance a.k.a. conventionally imputed falsehood)... my interest was in how/why does the emanation seem to possess such conventional characteristics? That was my curiosity, (if you want to say it's in the realm of the conventional that is fine by me, I'd say the conventional is implicit being that we're using language to discuss it). I suppose the behavioral characteristics of ghosts are answered for in the same way that other sentient beings likewise appear to exhibit behavior. Ghosts end up being equally just as much a "cognitive error / nexus of affliction" (as Malcolm so eloquently put it) as any other sentient beings are.

Andrew108 said:
For me Madhyamaka has been synonymous with Dzogchen and Mahamudra simply because thats the system under which my real nature was pointed out. So I have this attachment to the consequences of Madhyamaka and I don't see it as dry philosophy at all. If I was going to hold a view it would be that for me Dzogchen is Madyamaka upadesha but as you know Malcolm has pointed out that there are many people who get Dzogchen without having to go through Madyamaka certainty first. But now I can accept that.

krodha wrote:
I wouldn't say mādhyamaka is synonymous with mahāmudrā/dzogchen they have quite the different flavors. I don't see mādhyamaka as dry philosophy either, it's a fantastic system if properly applied. Mādhyamaka is a very hands-on system of accounting for imputed dualities/dichotomies by means of directly seeing their interdependency. Dzogchen/Mahāmudrā is a process of remaining in the view(tawa) of realization at all times, which then more-or-less spontaneously flowers on it's own accord... the view acts as the basis, process and end-result all at once.

Andrew108 said:
I mentioned I lived in Thailand. I lived in an old wooden teak house. There were snakes in the garden and apparently friends saw a ghost of a young girl there. I lived there for 2 years happily. The snakes didn't bother me and I never saw a ghost. When I talk of Thailand I'm just using a convention. Monks (another convention) came in different guises. I have no doubt that I met stream enterers and their wisdom and realization shone out. I still sometimes hope to go back and do retreat there. In many ways I see them as having more of a taste for liberation then obviously me or the other people that post here including Malcolm.
I need to practice some more so I'm trying to step away from making useless posts on this forum. But I thought I would share some thoughts with you as if we were talking face-to-face.

krodha wrote:
Stream entrants do have the view of certainty. That is the theme of that kun tu bzang po che ba la rang gnas pa quote I posted above; that unless one has had that initial glimpse of realization one is essentially searching for a light switch in the dark. Dzogchen meditation is predicated on that initial glimpse and that is what the teacher seeks to reveal to the student in direct introduction. That glimpse then becomes the new basis of operation and it is then cultivated. There's nothing wrong with making useless posts I do it frequently.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 2:24 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
859 posts and 9714 views in one week! Quite the thread.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 1:12 AM
Title: Re: Haunted Areas and Localized Entities, Ghosts, Energy
Content:
Luke said:
I do believe in ghosts, but sometimes unseen physical forces cause people to feel like they are in the presence of ghosts.  Intense magnetic fields and infrasound (very low frequency sounds) are two such physical phenomenon that can cause these feelings.  Magnetic fields and infrasound are stronger in some locations than in others.

krodha wrote:
This helmet "The Shakti Helmet" or "God Helmet" is said to be able to invoke or reproduce those feelings/effects as well. Interesting stuff.

THE GOD HELMET (Koren Helmet) Michael Persinger (Narrated by Morgan Freeman)
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y02UlkYjSi0

Paranormal State: The Shakti Helmet
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-xYebOggZw

Dr. Persinger's God Helmet
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YPOTaUyvA0


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 1:05 AM
Title: Re: Haunted Areas and Localized Entities, Ghosts, Energy
Content:
Luke said:
Do you think you could record some scientific evidence about your encounter with ghosts?  That would be very interesting!

krodha wrote:
Would be interesting, perhaps an EMF detector or something of the like would be able to corroborate these happenings.

There's 3 entities at my folks place too, a young girl whom I've seen in a twilight state while falling asleep, and my father has seen because she poked his back while he was in bed and when he turned over to look she giggled and floated into the corner where she vanished.

There's another that my brother calls "the tall man" who just observes and is quiet. My brother hasn't seen him but knows that he's there and intuitively knows his height for some reason. According to my brother he likes to stand in the kitchen doorway and at night the cats and dog will usually become very alert and stare at that location for minutes on end. I've seen him once out of the corner of my eye and he is tall. My 3 year old son has seen him and mistook him to be me, he told me he saw me in one of the rooms and I walked into the closet.

The scariest is an entity which only seems to be in my brothers old room, he's woken up twice to it. First time it was standing over his bed staring at him and he couldn't move (some type of sleep paralysis) and as soon as he was able to move his computer in the corner of the room turned on by itself. The second time he woke up and it was knelt by the edge of the bed waving its hands over his girlfriends head while she was sleeping, he was startled, lunged over and swung at it but it vanished. His girlfriend said she was having the most terrifying nightmares that night. My brother said it looks like Nosferatu, skinny pale face which comes to a point, eyes sunken-in to the point that they look like dark black empty holes, no hair, long boney pointy fingers. He said it was the same 'thing' both times he saw it. I've never seen it.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 21st, 2012 at 12:36 AM
Title: Re: Haunted Areas and Localized Entities, Ghosts, Energy
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
I'm well aware of the emptiness of duration and location, emptiness of self and other (beyond the pale of intellectual constructs). I get that the expression is being imputed as a sensation which is further conceived to be fear and then posited to be "my" fear in an erroneous chain of ignorance, yet it doesn't fail to be intriguing. Cutting through is not so much a contrived act of severing identification with certain aspects of ignorance (such as duration/location), but involves setting up correct view (and abiding in that) so that it sets itself right. Afterall how could I cut through ignorance?

Andrew108 said:
Cutting through is certainly not a contrived act - it's more like 'self-liberation' or letting go.

krodha wrote:
Even the act of letting go is a contrivance, it presupposes that there is one to do the 'letting go' and something to 'let go' of. A bit of the "horse and rider" problem which undoubtably foils the process. I'm not saying effort isn't required, but if it isn't skillfully done the initial cause of ignorance (misunderstanding) only persists.

Andrew108 said:
It's not about setting up a correct view and abiding in that and that's not what Madhyamaka is anyway.

krodha wrote:
It's what dzogchen is.

Malcolm said:
.........All that is necessary for liberation is direct introduction and subsequent diligence applying that introduction. Of course one can study anything and it can be helpful and useful to broadening one's understanding, so if you read my first post, you will see what I said.
M

Andrew108 said:
Are you really sure about this? I don't want to be argumentative but I think you are making an error here. Which Dzogchen practitioner has been liberated in this way? 
So no prior study. First time meeting with ChNN. Getting the introduction. Doing the practice (we don't know how long for). Getting liberated. Benefiting beings. 
Do you really think this happens?



krodha wrote:
Apart from this there is nothing whatsoever to clarify;
There is nothing whatsoever to establish;
Correctly view correctness itself.
By correctly seeing, you will be liberated.
- rten 'brel snying po

But you're right, mādhyamaka has a different flavor, though correct application should lead to the same view.

Andrew108 said:
It's more about natural self-liberation because you can't see anything arising. It's living in that fact of things seeming to be there but lacking any essence including fear, mothers, running, spirits, houses, anger, and so on..It's realizing equality in experience through self-liberation of that experience.

krodha wrote:
Which essentially is (or is akin to) correct view, wouldn't you agree?

Andrew108 said:
It's the same as giving up the idea of personality that is noted as a fetter in Therevada. Giving up this fetter - or allowing it to self-liberate is part of becoming a stream enterer.

krodha wrote:
Anattā is the catalyst and cause of stream entry (I'm sure you know), which is more of an instantaneous occurrence. I'm not sure if stream entry can happen gradually... the gradual aspect would seem to be the cultivation of right view. The cultivation allows the seed to grow which may lead to the dawning of anattā. Right view involves skillful means though, because again, giving up the idea of personality is the idea of personality attempting to give itself up. I suppose the fetters can be weakened with right view, but they certainly are instantly obliterated in anattā.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 11:35 PM
Title: Re: Haunted Areas and Localized Entities, Ghosts, Energy
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Afterall how could I cut through ignorance?

Wesley1982 said:
By recognizing the source of the ignorance.

krodha wrote:
That was meant to be rhetorical but yes you're right, the contradictory conundrum being that the very I which seeks to cut (through ignorance) is the cornerstone of ignorance itself.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 3:35 PM
Title: Re: Haunted Areas and Localized Entities, Ghosts, Energy
Content:
Andrew108 said:
It manifests in the same way desire does. Desire and fear need specific locations. Also they both need the sense of duration. Cut the idea of 'duration' (objects seen or unseen in time) and you cut the root of the idea of fear and desire - you cut the idea of location. It's basic ego-clinging. But talk with a teacher about it. My teacher was an expert Chod practitioner - chod is the practice of the prajnaparamita.

krodha wrote:
I'm well aware of the emptiness of duration and location, emptiness of self and other (beyond the pale of intellectual constructs). I get that the expression is being imputed as a sensation which is further conceived to be fear and then posited to be "my" fear in an erroneous chain of ignorance, yet it doesn't fail to be intriguing. Cutting through is not so much a contrived act of severing identification with certain aspects of ignorance (such as duration/location), but involves setting up correct view (and abiding in that) so that it sets itself right. Afterall how could I cut through ignorance?


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Title: Re: Haunted Areas and Localized Entities, Ghosts, Energy
Content:
Andrew108 said:
What you are experiencing is your own fear. So the only way to overcome that fear is to..............ask your teacher or put the teachings into practice.

krodha wrote:
Right that's what my inquiry was centered around; since it's a projection, why is it confined to that projected location? Why is it there sometimes (and very prevalent) and not present at all other times? Some nights it's not there at all. Sometimes I expect it and it's there. Sometimes I expect it and it's nowhere to be found. Sometimes don't expect it and it's there. There's been a couple times I've been able to jack my own energy up to such an extreme level that when it engages me I outshine it. So how are these projections able to manifest that way? It does manifest as fear yet the animalistic and territorial anger behind it is undeniable. It uses the energy like a bubble to push with. So I'm curious since it can't be other than a projection how such behavior is exhibited. It's actually not a problem really, it's fully confined to that area, if it was something in my experience all the time and causing lots of issues that'd be one thing. But since the projection is only associated with that area it's more intriguing than anything.

I get that it's only fear. It's just the behaviorial and circumstantial characteristics that are interesting.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Title: Re: Haunted Areas and Localized Entities, Ghosts, Energy
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
I've seen that you've mentioned Chögyal Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche before. Are you a member of the Dzogchen Community?

krodha wrote:
Not a member but Rinpoche is my root teacher and I partake in community practices etc...

Lhug-Pa said:
He has also said that Vajra Recitation is a powerful form of protection, although this might not work so well while running.

krodha wrote:
Seems doable while running, it can be done internally, thanks for the suggestion I'll experiment with it

Lhug-Pa said:
Do you feel that your energy is damaged or stolen at all by this entity?

krodha wrote:
There's no secondary effects, just the confrontation itself.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 7:56 AM
Title: Haunted Areas and Localized Entities, Ghosts, Energy
Content:
krodha wrote:
I've always had a natural proclivity for sensing presences (seen or unseen) ever since I was young and it's always intrigued me. There's been times in the past (prior to my relationship with the dharma) when it's really plagued my peace of mind. When I was old enough to live away from home it started to become increasingly apparent because it would always be conditional on where I was living at the time. The first two places I lived were ok, but the third a house in alameda I could not be there alone at night. The fourth place was fine I could be there alone at anytime no problem. The fifth was an apartment in southern California which was horrendous, one of the most heavy and evil presences I've ever felt, I could not sleep there at night and would have to stay awake until the morning when I could finally sleep. The janitor at that apartment even said he hated to go in there to clean and would do it as fast possible. The next place back in san francisco was absolutely fine and that was the time I discovered the dharma.

Presently where I live is fine, my sensitivity has increased with meditation and I'll have entities come into my room at night but they don't bother me I just know they're there. Same anytime a person comes into my room, if I'm sleeping I'll immediately awake.

I do go running at night probably 4 or 5 nights a week and there is an entity which lives in the creek near my place. It's incredibly intense and powerful, seems very territorial. If I run directly on the sidewalk next to it, it will essentially blast me with intense energy which arises as profound fear I can feel throughout my body. There's been times when I've skipped running for awhile and after returning to it the first night back I'll be running and not be paying attention to the creek where upon getting too close, with no expectation I will literally be almost knocked off my feet. So it isn't a consciously induced manifestation created through an accumulation of fear towards that area. And I feel that now that it knows that I know it's there it messes with me even more.   Needless to say after months of this I just run in the middle of the street when I get to that spot. The same creek connects to the road a quarter mile down the road and this thing will manifest again there and engage me. Whatever it is it's extremely powerful.

Now getting to the point, I understand the emptiness of phenomena in relation to my pseudo subjective being. I usually am able to rationalize the emptiness of fear except for cases like this creek entity. I know that in chod it's said that these perceived negative entities are attached to our own continuum due to karmic debts etc... But what I don't understand is how are these projections confined to certain perceived areas? Why can't that energy in the creek leave the creek? Why is it so hostile? And what can be done to deal with energy/entities of that nature? If as I understand, it's an empty projection of mind, why is it localized to this certain area? I know that facing the fear and breaking down the projections like in chod is the correct route. Seeing the emptiness of the entity in relation to the fear. Emptiness of the fear in relation to deluded perception mistaken as "me". I've gotten to the point where integration has corrected most of these erroneous projections except for instances of direct hostile engagement like this creek thing. I rationalize that it's only a sensation interpreted as "fear" which is utterly empty, but that's easy to do when it's not breathing down my neck.

I'm sure others here must have instances/occurrences like this? Any advice? Suggestions? Personal stories?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 19th, 2012 at 5:19 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
Malcolm said:
But we should not kid ourselves into to believing that liberation is only possible according to our preconceptions.

Pero said:
What does it matter if we "kid ourselves" like that?

krodha wrote:
Because when we insist that we indeed know (what is true) with certainty, we close the door to other possibilities. It's impossible to know anything for sure, at best we can strongly believe we know, but if we say we are certain we aren't being truthful, and we're kidding ourselves. Admitting that we don't know for certain is the truth, and when we can admit that to ourselves we remain open. Open mind, open doors. Which can leave the door open to unclutch from identification with our thoughts which leads to the furthest plane where the realization can dawn that there was no one to know in the first place. And with that reference point (used to judge) nullified, the heart opens to true compassion.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 11:10 PM
Title: Re: Does anyone have an experience of visions of the future?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
It isn't a bizarre theory, it's pretty self-evident if you look at it empirically. What you are directly experiencing is all that is, there is only this present moment which is the sum total of what is presently happening.

gregkavarnos said:
I repeat: just because YOU are not aware of it does not mean it does not exist.  That's the gist of what I am saying.  Now if you want to put the "YOU" in the centre of the universe and define all existence realtive to it, well that's YOUR problem not MINE.

krodha wrote:
Ah! Yes, however there's no "I" either(even though I surely seem to be saying that ), I wasn't suggesting a solipsistic view at all.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 4:24 AM
Title: Re: mind/matter dichotomy
Content:
trevor said:
While we're at it...

Malcolm said:
A more important contradiction between sutra, tantra and Dzogchen is that the latter is a vehicle beyond cause and result, whereas both sutra and tantra are vehicles of cause and result.

trevor said:
Could you please explain this a bit more? It has something to do with accumulating merit and wisdom?

krodha wrote:
Malcolm put it like this when I went overboard last time (which I will in this post somewhat) but this is his brief and to the point explanation:
Malcolm said:
Buddhahood is an innate quality:

“Oh Vajradhara you must listen! Since buddhahood is unconditioned, there is no buddhahood through fabricated dharmas. The three kāyas of buddhahood are present as the kāya of prajñā. Since there are no material signs in the the kāya of prajñā, it is unaffected by the consequences of karma. Since this impure deluded appearance arises as buddhahood, there is no need to purify karma and traces.”
-- The Tantra of Buddhahood as an Intrinsic Attribute

krodha wrote:
Dzogchen isn't a causal vehicle because it is your true nature, present timelessly, completely unborn, unadulterated, unobstructed. Through misunderstanding, an individual is posited to exist and then under the guise of that ignorance the conceptual individual attempts to make it's way back to the truth of his/her own true nature. The lower vehicles give credence to this misconception and allow it to objectify the 'natural state' and causally work towards achieving this truth (in time) which is impossible. This is because the process is predicated on a misnomer (in relation to other misnomers), and being that the individual is such, the individual can attain nothing, and never will. Only upon the 'seeing-through' of the illusion does the truth become self-evident, and it is then seen that the truth was always and ever-present.

Dzogchen avoids this predicament by directly introducing the aspirant to his/her true nature, and from there the only (effortless) task is to remain in that knowledge(rig pa), which is simultaneously the base, path and fruit.

"This (Dzogpa Chenpo) is the only resultant yāna and it is the summit of all the yānas. Except for this one, other yānas are accompanied by accepting and rejecting, defending and negating, and are created by mind. They are the stairs (leading) to this yāna. All the different tenets, divisions of yānas and the paths and stages - by accomplishing the great confidence in this realization - will be perfected in the equalness state without efforts."
- Mipham Namgyal

"Dzogpa Chenpo is the fortress of view, it's paths and stages are completed instantly. It is not comparable to the lower yānas."
- Garab Dorje

"A qualm: Surely if everyone who exists acts without action then whatever practices are done in the lower eight paths must be without purpose?
The Dzogchen reply is that everything that is practiced in those paths is made up by thoughts, and their practitioners never achieve the stage of acting without action, without thoughts. Dzogchen never pursues them, but all their acheivements, like sambhogakāya or dharmakāya or purification of knowledge are naturally present in Dzogchen Buddhahood. The reason for this is that all existing things are like illusions coming from the natural state. Therefore there is not any misview, as everything is liberated into the natural state."
- Lopon Tenzin Namdak

"The actual essence, pristine rig pa, 
cannot be improved upon, so virtue is profitless,
and it cannot be impaired, so vice is harmless;
in it's absence of karma there is no ripening of pleasure or pain;
in it's absence of judgement, no preference for samsara or nirvana;
in it's absence of articulation, it has no dimension;
in it's absence of past and future, rebirth is an empty notion;
who is there to transmigrate? And how to wander?
What is karma and how can it mature?
Contemplate the reality that is like the clear sky!

Constantly deconstructing, investigating keenly, 
not even the slightest substance can be found;
and in the undivided moment of nondual perception
we abide in the natural state of perfection."
- Longchenpa

"The Great Perfection does not require analysis or cultivation. Rather, it is merely a matter of recognizing, as your own nature, this very wakefulness of natural knowing that is self-existing and spontaneously present throughout samsara and nirvana. This recognizing is unlike the rigid clinging of intellectual or conceptual meditation training - as in the lower vehicles, which involves hope and fear, permissions and prohibitions concerning what to accept and reject - that is like a deer being caught in a hunter's trap. It is also unlike the lower sections of tantra in which the practitioners of Secret Mantra, in all the gradual stages of the path, engage in mental effort and conceptual involvement, as in the practices of the development stage, completion stage, and so on, which all require mental discrimination. These perspectives may each have their individual view, meditation, and fruition, but they are entirely different from the Great Perfection's fresh essence of primordial pure awareness, which is unchanging throughout the three times.

So, unless you perfect the great strength of such awareness, you will not attain the kayas and wisdoms of ultimate fruition - the result having captured the natural state of awareness withing the basic space of primordial purity, which is the place of liberation of the entirety of samsara and nirvana. This difference, as vast as heaven, is therefore of utmost importance. According to the king of views, our Dzogchen tradition - whether expressions of thought movement occur, remain, or dissolve, the essence does not change but remains a fresh, basic state of naturalness. No matter the variety of samsaric or nirvanic displays that may arise, there is nothing else to be attained apart from or superior to the unchanging essence suffused with awareness, which transcends being liberated, even though the labels "buddha" or "fruition" may be given to it. Since this essence has never been tainted by confusion, it is free from the seeds for taking rebirth within the worlds comprised of the three realms, the six classes of beings, and the four modes of rebirth.

Consequently, both samsara and nirvana are merely words and mind-made labels that to not possess a shred of real existence, not even as much as an atom - just like the space in a container is not really separate [from that outside of it]. Through personal experience you must realize this actuality. Primordial purity (kadag) means that the basic nature of awareness belongs to neither samsara or nirvana, and therefore it's identity is primordially pure. No type of virtuous karmic cause and effect improves this primordial purity, nor does any type of unvirtuous karmic cause and effect worsen it. In short, this wakefulness of self-existing knowing is not imporoved upon - not even one speck - by any amount of relative conceptual virtue belonging to the view, meditation, and conduct of the nine gradual vehicles. Also, it is not harmed in the slightest, even though one accumulates a tremendous amount of relative or superficial negative misdeeds, including the ten unvirtuous actions and the five actions with immediate consequences. This primordially pure identity of awareness can neither be improved nor harmed by anything whatsoever. All types of cause and effect from wholesome and unwholesome actions appear as expressions - just like the apparitions conjured by a magician. Realize that they are all unreal and empty, a magical display, and you will transcend the practices of cause and effect, which demand effort...."
- Drubwang Shakya Shri Jñāna


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 2:38 AM
Title: Re: Does anyone have an experience of visions of the future?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
...coz you have you are day dreaming about a bizarre theory of non-existence without perception,

krodha wrote:
It isn't a bizarre theory, it's pretty self-evident if you look at it empirically. What you are directly experiencing is all that is, there is only this present moment which is the sum total of what is presently happening.

You can claim that something is happening elsewhere, that things exist without your perception, but you can never prove it, it's a story, a very believable story, but still only a story. I understand that what I'm saying sounds ridiculous and bizarre, but I assure you I am not some fool who is blindly adopting some extreme view without having investigated it thoroughly.

gregkavarnos said:
and the car runs over your ass and perception (via bodily feeling/sensation of intense pain) suddenly makes the car existent for you, well you may stop and think how silly your theory really is (if you are not dead).

krodha wrote:
Isn't that prime example of the car's absence in experience prior to the arising of the expressions which convey "car"(i.e. intense pain)? One can tentatively say the car is indeed composed of sensation(though sensation is a misnomer). So the appearance of those sensations in experience(which IS experience) then makes the "car" fully evident, however it is only ever experience itself.

gregkavarnos said:
Just because YOU do not perceive a phenomenon does not mean it does not exist.  And if, as you believe, existence is dependent on perception then all phenomena must exist because there is not a single phenomenon that the mind of an Omniscient One (a Buddha) is not aware of.

krodha wrote:
Right, you just said it yourself... there is not a single phenomenon that the mind of a buddha is not aware of (i.e. what is not presently occurring in awareness, is NOT). Existence isn't dependent on perception because both existence and perception themselves are misnomers. But again, tentatively yes, we can say that existence is dependent on perception(and vice versa for they are not two). Of course proper application of dependent origination would see the emptiness in both of those designations right away, being that they are inseparable.

gregkavarnos said:
So do phenomena exist or not then???

krodha wrote:
They certainly seem to


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Does anyone have an experience of visions of the future?
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
Unless you are directly in the presence of the great wall , no great wall exists

kirtu said:
No not just - because we can actually go and find a structure labelled the GWC.  It doesn't fade out of existence if it's out of sight.

krodha wrote:
True, within mind an entire process of planning to go, going, arriving etc.. seems to occur, however that doesn't change the undeniable fact that unless you are presently in front of the great wall, there is no great wall. Empirically, only what is directly occurring at this very moment can be validated.

It's our habitual tendencies which piece all of these components together to form the world and the "happening" we call life. However when carefully examined they don't truly paint the picture we assume they do.

kirtu said:
you played the inherently exists card - I did not and have not said at all that the GWC inherently exists (it doesn't).  But it does exist relatively and physically independent of concepts before analysis (of course I just played the before analysis card).

krodha wrote:
It does not exist independently of concepts, and if something only exists relatively as a result of conception, then it cannot be said to truly exist at all. Physicality is a misnomer.

kirtu said:
The tsunami in the Indian Ocean didn't inherently exist either but it's devastation was quite real for thousands of relative beings.

krodha wrote:
These are words on a page which convey an idea. It's useful to consider this event as happening in the past so that one may anticipate a like event occurring in the future, but even at that, it is all projected ideation occurring in the immediacy, which seems to be painting a picture of past/future events (when in truth it is just a presently occurring expression of naturalness). No such event is evident in reality, which is this very timeless moment.

I don't reject the conventional reality of these happenings, but to confuse the conventional with the true nature of things is a mistake. The reality of the conventional is equivalent to an illusion or a dream, ultimately unreal.

kirtu said:
No the relative world is not about stories or beliefs (well, alot of it is - national myths, racial myths, etc.).  But physical objects have real physical existence with real effects even if we don't know about them beforehand.  Babies in Auschwitz without a concept of gas or a bullet or fire were nonetheless murdered by those relative forces.

krodha wrote:
Yes the mind pieces components together to form a such a picture.... there are no physical objects, no physical existence, no physical effects, no beforehand, no aftermath. However all of these things do seem to appear in mind and I don't reject that.

kirtu said:
The relative world does  not disappear in samadhi.  Concepts about the relative world can.

krodha wrote:
True samadhi is one's natural state, and being that the relative world is a product of ignorance it certainly does dissolve upon correct view. The relative world is solely a product of conception. Concepts don't describe or comment on pre-existent 'things'.... the 'things' arise from imputed concepts and are inseparable from them.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 18th, 2012 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:
krodha wrote:
...Moreover, in the context of establishing this view of the Luminous Heart Essence of the Great Perfection.... it is an extremely vital point not to intermingle this view with the "views of assumption" that belong to the nine gradual vehicles. This is because the emptiness or the views of the teachings and the practitioners of the other vehicles - from the shravakas up to that of Secret Mantra - are all exclusively established by means of analytical meditation. 

The Great Perfection does not require analysis or cultivation. Rather, it is merely a matter of recognizing, as your own nature, this very wakefulness of natural knowing that is self-existing and spontaneously present throughout samsara and nirvana. 

This recognizing is unlike the rigid clinging of intellectual or conceptual meditation training - as in the lower vehicles, which involves hope and fear, permissions and prohibitions concerning what to accept and reject - that is like a deer being caught in a hunter's trap. It is also unlike the lower sections of tantra in which the practitioners of Secret Mantra, in all the gradual stages of the path, engage in mental effort and conceptual involvement, as in the practices of the development stage, completion stage, and so on, which all require mental discrimination. 

These perspectives may each have their individual view, meditation, and fruition, but they are entirely different from the Great Perfection's fresh essence of primordial pure awareness, which is unchanging throughout the three times.

So, unless you perfect the great strength of such awareness, you will not attain the kayas and wisdoms of ultimate fruition - the result having captured the natural state of awareness withing the basic space of primordial purity, which is the place of liberation of the entirety of samsara and nirvana. This difference, as vast as heaven, is therefore of utmost importance. 

According to the king of views, our Dzogchen tradition - whether expressions of thought movement occur, remain, or dissolve, the essence does not change but remains a fresh, basic state of naturalness. 

No matter the variety of samsaric or nirvanic displays that may arise, there is nothing else to be attained apart from or superior to the unchanging essence suffused with awareness, which transcends being liberated, even though the labels "buddha" or "fruition" may be given to it.

Since this essence has never been tainted by confusion, it is free from the seeds for taking rebirth within the worlds comprised of the three realms, the six classes of beings, and the four modes of rebirth.

Consequently, both samsara and nirvana are merely words and mind-made labels that to not possess a shred of real existence, not even as much as an atom - just like the space in a container is not really separate [from that outside of it]. Through personal experience you must realize this actuality. 

Primordial purity (kadag) means that the basic nature of awareness belongs to neither samsara or nirvana, and therefore it's identity is primordially pure. No type of virtuous karmic cause and effect improves this primordial purity, nor does any type of unvirtuous karmic cause and effect worsen it. 

In short, this wakefulness of self-existing knowing is not imporoved upon - not even one speck - by any amount of relative conceptual virtue belonging to the view, meditation, and conduct of the nine gradual vehicles. Also, it is not harmed in the slightest, even though one accumulates a tremendous amount of relative or superficial negative misdeeds, including the ten unvirtuous actions and the five actions with immediate consequences. This primordially pure identity of awareness can neither be improved nor harmed by anything whatsoever. All types of cause and effect from wholesome and unwholesome actions appear as expressions - just like the apparitions conjured by a magician. Realize that they are all unreal and empty, a magical display, and you will transcend the practices of cause and effect, which demand effort....

- Drubwang Shakya Shri Jñāna


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: Does anyone have an experience of visions of the future?
Content:
kirtu said:
But the physical GWC really exists whether you know about it or not.

Aemilius said:
1. Great Wall of China is an idea, you can't perceive it as such without knowing this idea.

kirtu said:
As I said the physical GWC exists to ordinary perception whether you know about it or not.  You could take a person to the GWC (perhaps blindfolded) and they would perceive the structure without having to be told about it in advance.

In fact this happens frequently for little children.

krodha wrote:
Unless you are directly in the presence of the great wall, no great wall exists (and actually even in the presence of the great wall there is no such thing either). We accept a story that objects inherently exist "out there in the world" somewhere (separate from us) whether they are being perceived or not... but that is only a story that has been accepted. Accepted rather thoroughly albeit, to the point that I'm sure the suggestion of it's falsity would conjure vehement disapproval and would be considered ludicrous, but that just goes to show how deeply engrained delusion can become. The story is only a story. You can choose to believe the story... but the story will never escape belief. Only what is presently and directly occurring in experience IS. And that isn't even true because the nature of direct experience is misconstrued even further, wrought with countless misnomers mistaken as inherent aspects/attributes. All separation is illusory.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 2:55 AM
Title: Batman Practices Togal
Content:
krodha wrote:
Took the following from the blog I found the batman info on, some of it may not be entirely accurate (or accurate at all).

"As we know, Batman is a man of many talents. Among his lesser know skills is a mastery of esoteric Tibetan meditation practices. Yes, Batman does tögal. His mastery of this technique is revealed in the R.I.P. series of comics, where he uses tögal to experience death, overcoming his last shred of fear. Pretty neat. For those of you who are unfamiliar with tögal (tib: ཐོད་རྒལ།), it is a Dzokchen practice where a practitioner allows their pure nature to shine forth in the form of luminous Buddha images. Rather than being intentionally visualized, these forms appear spontaneously to a practitioner’s visual consciousness. Last time I checked (and I’m hardly an expert on this), tögal is not usually presented as a rehearsal for dying.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Before we dismiss the Dark Knight as an impostor, we should take a look at how he describes the practice he’s doing. In Robin 175, we learn that the tögal ritual Batman performs (and it is consistently called a ritual, rather than a practice, but let’s not get hung up on semantics) involves staying shut in a Nepali cave for forty-nine days. The goal, we are told, is to simulate death and rebirth. This does not give us much to go on, even though tögal can be performed in a sealed and darkened room, and forty-nine days is the traditional length for the period between death and re-birth.

For more detail, we need to turn to the opening pages of Batman 681. Here we find Bruce Wayne relaying his tögal experiences to a monk. “As I lay in the darkness,” he says, “I began to experience vivid hallucinations of the past and present, even the future. But then I came to the end of even that. I found myself in a place that’s not a place.” “In tögal,” the monk replies, “the initiate learns what the dead know. The self is peeled back to its black, radiant core.”

Now we’ve got something to compare with traditional understandings of tögal. First off, we have visions. Check. So far so good. Then the visions stop. In traditional tögal, the final stage of the practice is when all of the visions collapse back in on themselves. Again, check. Finally, we learn that the point of the practice is to reveal the radiant core of the self. In traditional presentations, it is a person’s pure, radiant nature that is the source of tögal’s visionary experiences. So actually, we’re not too far off here. I don’t think many tögal practitioners would describe this radiant core as black, but then again this monk has just tried to murder Batman, so perhaps he was only referring to himself. Again then, check. If Bruce only stopped here, we could say that he actually does a halfway decent job of sticking to themes found in real-world tögal.

Instead, however, Bruce brings things back to death. A few pages later, he reveals to the monk why he undertook the tögal ritual, “I wanted to taste the flavor of death. I wanted to know that I had experienced every eventuality.” Again, we’re back to the idea that tögal somehow simulates the death and re-birth process. Now, to be fair, texts such as the Bardo Tödröl (popularly known as The Tibetan Book of the Dead, a text which hails from the same practice tradition that gives us tögal) claim that after death, one experiences spontaneous visions of Buddhist deities. Further, these visions are projections of an individual’s radiant core, just as in tögal. So it might not be too far fetched to see tögal as something of a rehearsal for the events that occur during the death process.

Traditionally, however, tögal is not usually presented in this way. Instead, it is a practice for revealing the pure, radiant nature of everything someone experiences, with death being just one experience among many. This may not seem like much of a shift, but it goes to the heart of the practice. Tögal is a practice concerned with experiencing primordial purity in the present moment, rather than a means to prepare for a future event. For an accomplished practitioner of tögal, the death process should be just as radiant and pure as every other moment of their life. So, no, Batman doesn’t quite have his heart in the right place when he undertakes this practice.

Still, we have to give DC Comics’ writers some credit here. Despite not quite getting the overall intent of the practice, they came pretty close on lots of the details. Others they missed, such as the ‘Tibetan’ monastery that looks strikingly Japanese, or the cave that looks more like depictions of Jesus’ sepulcher than any Tibetan retreat cave I’ve ever seen. Clearly, however, someone on their staff was into researching obscure Tibetan practices, and we should applaud them for not just making things up, even if the final product is a little off.

Thanks to David Germano for bringing Batman’s tögal mastery to my attention."
http://thelostyak.com/category/books/


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 2:08 AM
Title: Re: colored light
Content:
krodha wrote:
Due to a lack of cognizance of the One, original purity isn't self-recognized as it's own intrinsic reality, and thus appropriation takes place in the manner of a catalyst.

The objective support is the colored lights (of the Ground's lighting-up), and thus by virtue of the causes and conditions of the subtle factor of duality there comes to be the objectifications involved in the karmic processes of cyclic existence. 

- Penetration of Sound Tantra | sgra thal 'gyur


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 17th, 2012 at 12:55 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
I think bottom line is most of them only go as far as the ālaya (interpreted in the context of their own traditions of course). That coupled with being severed from the lineage makes it quite difficult. Most traditions reify a ground as a true existent. No other tradition does direct introduction, and not sure if they could given their self-inflicted shortcomings in that respect. Doesn't mean they cannot receive introduction and practice/benefit from it though.

Dechen Norbu said:
That's the point.

Astus said:
Interesting. Although the nature of mind in all different schools are understood to be universal, and it is something quite easy to see, there is this idea that only one specific school/lineage has the actual methods to comprehend it, while obviously the teachings are known to so many. It is all right that there is an independent group of Dzogchen practitioners who don't want to identify with Nyingma, Bon, or any other school. But this ignorance of other teachings can easily result in arrogance that there is not a single Buddhist outside the Dzogchen group who has a proper understanding of the teachings that are actually found in their own sutras, tantras and treatises.

krodha wrote:
I wasn't talking about other buddhist schools... Buddhism teaches the same thing from the ground up. Sutra teachings aim to deliver the same realization as dzogchen, some are just more direct and expedited than others obviously. When I said other traditions I meant other religions, and their self-inflicted shortcomings are the belief systems they champion in addition to the fact that most either aim for a substantiated nonduality or just straight up identify with belief. I never ever would be so arrogant/ignorant to suggest what it seems you interpreted me as suggesting. My apologies for not being more clear in my statement.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 7:53 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Buddhism
Content:


Lhug-Pa said:
But this could get into a debate about whether or not non-Dzogchen traditions in themselves could introduce to people that which is introduced (the Nature of Mind) in Dzogchen (a debate which has been done to death).

krodha wrote:
I think bottom line is most of them only go as far as the ālaya (interpreted in the context of their own traditions of course). That coupled with being severed from the lineage makes it quite difficult. Most traditions reify a ground as a true existent. No other tradition does direct introduction, and not sure if they could given their self-inflicted shortcomings in that respect. Doesn't mean they cannot receive introduction and practice/benefit from it though.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 9:34 AM
Title: Re: What do you think enlightenment is like?
Content:
krodha wrote:
I'd say whatever you think it is, is exactly what it's not.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 9:18 AM
Title: Re: Does anyone have an experience of visions of the future?
Content:


kirtu said:
But the physical GWC really exists whether you know about it or not.

Kirt

asunthatneversets said:
Does it? I might agree with mzaur on this one. Does anything exist beyond one's knowledge of it? Either conceptually or experientially? It's commonsensical to believe it does but if it's thoroughly investigated I'm not sure if the common view holds up.

kirtu said:
By "really exists" I mean that the physical world functions as commonly expected.  In reality "it is not the way it seems but neither is it other".  The "neither is it other" part is important.  I could go further with examples: I stepped onto Greenland before I saw Greenland for example because it was so foggy, I landed in Hawaii before I saw the island I was landing at, people get ill and sometimes have no symptoms but nonetheless they die from those illnesses, etc.

Kirt

krodha wrote:
I'd interpret "it is not the way it seems but neither is it other" as stating that reality (or any other imputed designation) certainly isn't the way it seems to be, but being that it is a projection (an imputed appearance) and is only quantified in accordance with the originating concept it is inseparable from, as such it (as an object of knowledge) cannot appear in any other way... because apart from the knowledge of it(the concept or idea) there is nothing to be found.  Which falls in line with the great wall being unfounded(unborn) apart from one's knowledge of it.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Does anyone have an experience of visions of the future?
Content:


mzaur said:
Great Wall of China is an idea. Of course it doesn't exist until you know about it.

kirtu said:
But the physical GWC really exists whether you know about it or not.

Kirt

krodha wrote:
Does it? I might agree with mzaur on this one. Does anything exist beyond one's knowledge of it? Either conceptually or experientially? It's commonsensical to believe it does but if it's thoroughly investigated I'm not sure if the common view holds up.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 14th, 2012 at 1:40 AM
Title: Re: Issues with deficient teaching masked by the illogic of Zen
Content:
krodha wrote:
Sometimes those illogical statements are used to catch the student off guard, just like the implementation of loud yells, clapping, slapping, throwing objects, stomping feet etc... The student expects a "logical" answer in the form of a concept they can latch onto and instead the teacher points outside language and concepts to suchness itself.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 12:55 PM
Title: Re: Teach & tell me about buddha mind
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
The physicality of our physical human nature is just one aspect.

krodha wrote:
All I can ask is that you remain open to the possibility that physicality is an illusion. I'd never ask you to believe that it's an illusion, because that would be the same as believing it's real... But keep an open mind.

Wesley1982 said:
[the basics] examine and study my own mind & look deep inside deep down in the mind and uproot the small problems clearing the mind which opens its way to meditation and the general dharma(s).

krodha wrote:
Meditation IS examining the mind and uprooting problems, there's no prerequisites to meditation except knowing how to do it right. And examining the mind is doing it right.

Investigate the "you" who is doing the investigation of the mind as well... Try this meditation exercise if you'd like, it's quite powerful: Inquire "who am I?" and look deep down, deep inside the one doing the investigating (the same way you're looking deep down deep inside the mind like you mentioned above). If any label or concept arises to describe the "I", ask "who is it that witnesses this label or concept?" you should naturally answer "I do" and then immediately ask "but who am I?". Keep that up until all answers are exhausted, and when no answer arises, look deeply into the nature of that silence.

I'm no teacher, and not trying to act like one so by all means disregard my suggestion if you want to... but do give it a shot if you feel inclined to do so!


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, May 13th, 2012 at 4:56 AM
Title: Re: Teach & tell me about buddha mind
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
Its also interesting to try and understand the mental reasoning behind certain prisoners who have a history of violence.

krodha wrote:
There's a big difference between attempting to theoretically understand the behavior of inmates, and then Buddha mind which is an inexpressible truth meant to be experienced. Buddha mind isn't a theory or an intellectual understanding.

If you hold tightly to your assumption that the world is a "physical" construct composed of matter you aren't going to get very far. It's best to let go of all presuppositions in this teaching and let the pointers work for themselves. Otherwise you poison the process with pre-conceived notions which block potential change. Look at Buddhism as unlearning all that you think you know, if you go into a process of unlearning firmly attached to what you think you know, you're damned to remain stagnant.

Being "open" will take you a long way in this. Watch that within yourself, prime example being your answer to my question about colors and shapes above, you completely disregarded it and just insisted on sticking to your usual reasoning (which is fine). But I saw that in your response, and I'm not about to press the issue if someone isn't even open to investigating their point of view. Pushing a point of view (or new idea) onto someone who isn't even interested is the quickest way to make someone clam up even further and refuse to listen. But that's ok, we all have to evolve on our own terms in these teachings. Just keep in mind that your normal perception (and point of view) is what Buddhism is meant to change so if you aren't open to that, and insist that what you think you know is correct, change cannot happen.

Some good advice is to remain open, keep an open mind. I personally seek to be proven wrong, I always want to adapt and progress. I never insist that I know, and when i see that I'm wrong or i'm shown a better way to view something i embrace it. I'm metaphorically always shedding my skin so I can grow. And that doesn't mean I just blindly accept anything that comes along that sounds better, I empirically investigate, investigation is the key. Don't even accept what I'm saying right now either, just consider being open to change, if you can do that the dharma will lead you places you never could have imagined.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 12th, 2012 at 4:39 AM
Title: Re: Teach & tell me about buddha mind
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
If we take a large metal cubit and pour concrete into it and let it dry for a few weeks then there is no consciousness in that concrete cubit.

krodha wrote:
Ok, well you seem to have your mind made up! And that is ok.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 12th, 2012 at 3:45 AM
Title: Re: Teach & tell me about buddha mind
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Wesley, I cordially challenge you to locate a world separate from consciousness.

Wesley1982 said:
The middle-center of a large concrete block? . . -or- the concrete + asphalt jungles we've created? . .

krodha wrote:
And how does the concrete block appear? Take the grey color, and the cube shape; do those attributes exist separately from the seeing of them? Are the greyness and the visual shape qualities which can be accessed without vision?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 12th, 2012 at 3:17 AM
Title: Re: Teach & tell me about buddha mind
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
Technically, you could go places and find people.

kirtu said:
Why only technically?

Kirt

Wesley1982 said:
From my POV the natural & physical world doesn't have any consciousness or intelligence other than certain people who are aware of your existence.

krodha wrote:
Wesley, I cordially challenge you to locate a world separate from consciousness.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 11:46 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the concept of progress....
Content:
Andrew108 said:
For Magnus -
I see it more in terms of 'collapse' than 'continuation'. So in that sense I don't really see the progress but deal with the consequences of a collapse.
When the structure of a form is no longer seen or needed or established -  then there is a collapse - a falling into itself. So often dualistic mind is assuming that within every form there is a structure - an essence or foundation. Maybe this is what dualistic mind is actually - this willingness to reify form by giving it a structural foundation where none exists.
Even if we see forms as 'mere appearance' we can still impute a structure to the 'mere appearance (this self looking at non-self as asunneversets pointed out). There is still an assumption that something (energy for example) is happening - that rainbows however illusory still have a 'something'. An assumption that meditation continues or the natural state continues and needs to continue.
So yeah collapse rather than progress and dealing with the consequences of all the bones being taken out of the body so to speak.

krodha wrote:
Also that the issue isn't whether or not form indeed has a structural foundation, because to say form lacks structure still subtly presupposes an initial form to lack structure. So the imputation of form having no structure creates form by default. This is why it is said that in the supreme view form is not cut with the razor of emptiness. From the very beginning form is empty and vice versa. Which essentially means, directly see that form is a product of conceptual imputation, there never was form to begin with. Likewise there are no appearances because appearances must appear to something, also suggesting rising and falling before a subject. So it ends up not even being that the metaphorical bones are taken out of the body, but that the body never was the body, it was the natural state all along since beginningless time. Upon that realization progression is seen as inapplicable because it was predicated on a misconception.

Like building a beautiful house for oneself in a dream, laboring intensively pouring ones blood, sweat and tears into the project, finally finishing the house and being elated, living in it creating memories, maybe losing it to a fire and feeling that pain and disappointment, and you start to rebuild.... and then you wake up and discover you'd been fast asleep and dreaming the whole time.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 11:17 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the concept of progress....
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Dzogchen is unique because...


Namdrol said:
Buddhahood is an innate quality:

“Oh Vajradhara you must listen! Since buddhahood is unconditioned, there is no buddhahood through fabricated dharmas. The three kāyas of buddhahood are present as the kāya of prajñā. Since there are no material signs in the the kāya of prajñā, it is unaffected by the consequences of karma. Since this impure deluded appearance arises as buddhahood, there is no need to purify karma and traces.”
-- The Tantra of Buddhahood as an Intrinsic Attribute

krodha wrote:
True. Apologies if I made it sound otherwise, I wanted to portray it's immediate and direct nature without neglecting the seeming process that may unfold in some cases. But I guess that raises the question; If it isn't ascertained right away (so that one recognizes rig pa and remains in that knowledge) would the resultant path be considered dzogchen? Or does it automatically default to a different practice at that point, say mahayoga or anuyoga? Is ati fairly black and white in that respect? Because the progression would certainly be nullified in that case. That's an awesome quote by the way.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 9:17 AM
Title: Re: Teach & tell me about buddha mind
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
In the self-study of my mind, I find myself searching for other intelligence and can't seem to find anything.

asunthatneversets said:
What other intelligence are you searching for? Or what is the nature of the other intelligence you are hoping to find?

Wesley1982 said:
There isn't anyone there outside of Internet, Phone or T.V. except God or the Great Buddha.

krodha wrote:
"There" as in realized or of sufficient realization to teach competently? Certainly... but I believe you mentioned that you are located in an area without much access to teachers or a community, is that what you mean? Have you tried seeing if there are any dharma-related groups in the area? Reading/study groups? Perhaps even a course on the dharma(or eastern religion/philosophy) at a local community college could be helpful in the time-being while you seek a qualified teacher. Granted those places wouldn't be guaranteed to have competent individuals who could truly answer questions with accuracy, but at least you could share some ideas and gain some insight. At the same time, the internet isn't a bad place to stay in the time being either, lots of access to videos, ebooks, other writings, perhaps there's communities on skype or another application like that. Just stick with it, everything will come together if you desire it to... I'm sure the resources are there somewhere even if it feels like you're searching for a needle in a haystack.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 8:32 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and the concept of progress....
Content:
Andrew108 said:
We all like attending teachings and planning for courses. We also like it when our teachers plan something 'advanced' for us to learn. I guess we like the idea of progress.
I'm wondering in a sincere way if we are not actually fooling ourselves?
If we accept the base as the path then who actually progresses? Isn't there a point when the lineage 'methods' get collected and conceptually held on to?
I'm not doubting the profundity of the methods, but could the wish to 'get' Dzogchen or to 'be' in Dzogchen not be something that obscures? Isn't the idea of 'progress' within Dzogchen or even the idea of a 'continuation' of realization falsely drawn? And in that sense an obscuration?

krodha wrote:
Notion of progression can be an obscuration, but literally doing nothing and not going down the path at all is guaranteed obscuration. The union of the base and the path is actually supposed to be a trifecta: base, path and fruit. The teacher introduces you to your innate natural state which is the basis, path and fruit. There is always the danger of conceptually grasping at methods, teachings, transmissions etc...

In the dharmakāya, Samantabhadra,
There is nobody called lama
And no scholar who teaches the doctrine of initiation.
In realizing your own mind as dharmakāya,
you obtain the initiations and oral transmissions of all the conquerors.
Grasping at transmission is just discursive thought.

But that is the nature of the beast. Some will get caught up, some will know how to traverse through these obstacles. The best advice I ever got was "don't get caught up in the bullshit", see the essence of the teaching and use the methods as methods, but stay the course.

In the end the wish to 'get it' does indeed obscure it, but that drive has to be present, there has to be the intention, the want and the desire. Dzogchen is unique because it is supposed to directly show you the goal right off the bat, so there is no doubt. Seeing the 'goal' and seeing that the goal indeed IS the base, path and fruit simultaneously is a practitioners greatest ally. But for some it isn't as apparent, or isn't recognized at all which makes it a hard path to follow.

Meditation is not foremost, realization is foremost;
If realization is not entered with confidence,
The meditator is merely meditating on a conceptual state,
The seeker is seeking with an afflicted clinging.
- kun tu bzang po che ba la rang gnas pa

Progress is a fallacy, but progress happens. You've seen the famous quote:

Suffering there certainly is, but no sufferer,
no doer, though certainly the deed is found.
peace is achieved, but no-one's appeased,
the way is walked, but no walker's to be found.
- Visuddhimagga XVI, 90

The buddha used to even play off of this truth in his didactic teachings with aspiring students: he would say suffering is caused by desire, go away and meditate and rid yourself of desire. If the students weren't quick witted they may spend days, months, years without realizing that they were indeed desiring not to desire. But for some... BOOM right then it would click and the futility of the path was seen, because they saw that there was no one to walk the path in the first place. Some however need to walk the path, and that is absolutely appropriate. Some get the futility of it but it hasn't fully clicked so there is work to do, and that is absolutely appropriate. Some will strive for years and may actualize it, or may not, and that too is absolutely appropriate.

It becomes an obscuration when it isn't understood that the very self who desires to achieve the goal, is an illusion. The experiential realization that the self is indeed an illusion(and therefore the goal is illusory) is the goal itself. So in striving to 'get there' the process just continually unfolds, that is why the relative condition is depicted as the cycle of samsara, circular, without beginning or end. Or why it is the "shoreless ocean" of samsara... one cannot get to 'there' from 'here'. The very act of pursuing the goal is actually creating the goal, and one is essentially chasing their own tail. The more one struggles the tighter the noose becomes around their throat.

What has to happen; is the direct apperception that the entire process is predicated on misnomers and illusions. That the "I" or "me" who could achieve anything is merely an idea or a concept which is being related to another concept called liberation. So the pseudo-subject then objectifies liberation into time and believes that it can access this liberation if it performs the right way or learns the right things. Some get caught up in the objectifying and don't see the fundamental delusion taking place, and thus they search and search, and some even feel they have achieved something, collected ornaments of the teaching etc. It is pure delusion. There is no "I" and there is no liberation, and the direct knowledge of this truth IS liberation. Liberation is the discovery that there never was anyone in bondage to begin with.

However! That being said, this is often misconstrued as advocating complete non-action. And many misinterpret this as meaning that they are 'already liberated' in their present state of ignorance. That is not the case. As long as there is a feeling of being an individual, afflicted perception is present. There is no subject or object in the exalted state, and that isn't a conceptual absence of self, if you feel you know there is no self, that is the self which knows. The realization will be an innate discovery, 100% self-evident and beyond the need for any clarification or confirmation. It is this present wakefulness and it needs no cultivation, but it is not the fragmented manner this present wakefulness appears in due to afflicted dualistic grasping.

Apart from this there is nothing whatsoever to clarify;
There is nothing whatsoever to establish;
Correctly view correctness itself.
By correctly seeing, you will be liberated.
- rten 'brel snying po

If you understand one dharma, you will not be ignorant of any dharma.
- chos kyi rgyal po

If you analyze the selflessness of dharmas,
And meditate after that analysis,
This is the cause which results in the attainment of nirvāṇa.
No other cause will be a basis (i.e. you will not attain buddhahood).
- gting nge 'dzin rgyal po'i mdo


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: How does guru yoga work?
Content:
krodha wrote:
You'll also hear a teacher like ChNN say there is no difference between the student or guru, there is only a difference because the student believes there is. In truth there is no separation. So in guru yoga, by becoming the guru... endowed with all enlightened qualities and manifesting as the guru in that moment, the practitioner can 1)begin to build that bridge and familiarity or 2)see that they are no different than the guru because by becoming the guru: "Joe blow" or "Mary smith" is no longer there.

Just like in deity yoga.. You do the mudras and feel the energy and movement of the yidam, you do the mantra and speech of the yidam, you visualize and see what the yidam sees, you hear the mantra and hear what the yidam hears... In that moment you indeed are the yidam. If those factors make you the yidam, then those factors still present in daily life make us "me" or "I". So the "I" is merely a construct of these factors. The deeper this is realized, emptiness of self gradually becomes more and more apparent(it also sometimes happens right away in a dramatic flash of insight). When this realization dawns, naturally the emptiness of the self implies the emptiness of other (if truly ascertained). In that place duality is seen to be false and (even if it is still the exalted union generated by the yidam) it is seen that "that place" is here and now.

And of course there's an energetic activation involved with these practices which delivers effects/results as well (in addition to many other beneficial aspects I'm sure).


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 5:35 AM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Chatral Rinpoche is a dzogchen master and is a big advocate of vegetarianism...

Namdrol said:
Frankly, eating grassfed meat is far better for the environment and ecosystems in the world than being a consumer of soy products. Soy is a very environmentally damaging crop ( http://civileats.com/2009/01/27/a-vegan-reassesses-soy-a-health-and-environmental-perspective " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Grass fed cattle who are moved from fresh pasture to pasture actually sequester carbon and rebuild the local environment becase of the interaction between cattle and pasture. Joel Salatin writes in his recent The Sheer Ecstacy of Being a Lunatic Farmer (2010, Polyface):

krodha wrote:
I agree about the soy, no doubt... In addition to the environmental effects, soy in the amounts that are consumed regularly nowadays (by those who turn to it as an alternative) is very dangerous as well it seems:

# High levels of phytic acid in soy reduce assimilation of calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and zinc. Phytic acid in soy is not neutralized by ordinary preparation methods such as soaking, sprouting and long, slow cooking. High phytate diets have caused growth problems in children.

# Trypsin inhibitors in soy interfere with protein digestion and may cause pancreatic disorders. In test animals soy containing trypsin inhibitors caused stunted growth.

# Soy phytoestrogens disrupt endocrine function and have the potential to cause infertility and to promote breast cancer in adult women.

# Soy phytoestrogens are potent antithyroid agents that cause hypothyroidism and may cause thyroid cancer. In infants, consumption of soy formula has been linked to autoimmune thyroid disease.

# Vitamin B12 analogs in soy are not absorbed and actually increase the body's requirement for B12.

# Soy foods increase the body's requirement for vitamin D.

# Fragile proteins are denatured during high temperature processing to make soy protein isolate and textured vegetable protein.

# Processing of soy protein results in the formation of toxic lysinoalanine and highly carcinogenic nitrosamines.

# Free glutamic acid or MSG, a potent neurotoxin, is formed during soy food processing and additional amounts are added to many soy foods.

# Soy foods contain high levels of aluminum which is toxic to the nervous system and the kidneys.

I personally go the almond milk/rice milk route instead, and stay away from soy products as much as possible, I've been vegetarian for 10 years now and have no desire to eat meat (probably ever again) but I would never persecute those who choose to. When I first started being involved with the DC I remember being told my diet choices were going to be an issue and that I should probably start eating meat. I didn't really understand it but remained open to the suggestion... presently I still haven't eaten meat and that hasn't caused an issue with the effects/insights/realizations the teaching has gave way to as far as I can tell. I still remain open to what ChNN suggests, and I respect everyone for doing what they would like to.

I definitely agree that taking a holier than thou attitude when it comes to diet is ridiculous. Also agree that even for those who claim to be living a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle in the name of compassion are still subject to causing death/harm to animals... be it bugs on the windshield, stepping on bugs, wearing leather, using products associated with animal testing etc... but also that even in being a vegetarian in the consumption of plants, life is still being taken. Some may argue that plants aren't sentient beings but there's been discoveries regarding plant behavior which refute that view. Either way the effect we have on our environment and beings around us via direct or collateral damage is always inescapable.

I am very interested in this aspect of dzogchen regarding meat and compassion, do you know anywhere I could get more info on that? Or what is it which makes consumption of meat compassionate vs. avoidance of meat incompassionate?

Namdrol said:
Finally, in the end, being an eater of meat does not make one less capable of realizing the meaning of the teachings, and being a vegetarian does not make one more capable of realizing the teachings.

That is the bottom line.

N

krodha wrote:
Agreed.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 11th, 2012 at 1:52 AM
Title: Re: Teach & tell me about buddha mind
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
In the self-study of my mind, I find myself searching for other intelligence and can't seem to find anything.

krodha wrote:
What other intelligence are you searching for? Or what is the nature of the other intelligence you are hoping to find?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 10th, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Title: Re: the great vegetarian debate
Content:
krodha wrote:
Chatral Rinpoche is a dzogchen master and is a big advocate of vegetarianism...

from wikipedia:

"A lay yogi, he is also greatly concerned with maintaining strict discipline in the context of the Dzogchen view. He is especially well known for his advocacy of vegetarianism and his yearly practice of ransoming the lives of thousands of animals in India".


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 10th, 2012 at 3:26 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
It certainly seems to.

cloudburst said:
exactly.

krodha wrote:
Well no, your point was that it DOES appear, and I agreed that it certainly SEEMS to appear, but does it appear? I would argue that it does not.


asunthatneversets said:
Again there seems to be an appearance, just as there seems to be the appearance of objects, just as there seems to be objects, all of which are misnomers. The seeming appearances(objects) are predicated on another seeming appearance(subject), an illusion predicated on an illusion does not truly produce an appearance,

cloudburst said:
see how you need to qualify here in order to make your point? It's because you know that you will have to admit that it does appear, albeit not truly. Is your computer appearing to you right now? The fact that "it seems to" is precisely what appearance means. No one is saying there is actually a computer from it's own side DOING the appearing, all (here) agree there is not. But is there an appearance of a computer?

krodha wrote:
My point is that all of these designations are misnomers in the end, including appearance. So why do you dance on appearance and not dance on objects or sensory perception.. it's all ignorance all the way down, it all appears at once depending on what is imputed upon it, none of it truly is.

I'll have to admit it does appear? Anything can appear (to be) within the ignorance, there appears to be objects, there appears to be sensory modalities, there appears to be internal/external. NONE of it is true, none of it is real. A computer from it's own side? What sides? Within the realm of ignorance the projection of a computer may appear, but nothing has appeared other than ignorance, on "it's" own side, or on any other side.

For the sake of communication we accept these conventionalities, why you think I reject them I don't understand, you are reading my words and I am typing them, conventional language is obviously being employed to make a point.

asunthatneversets said:
it seems to appear just as there seemed to be a snake, however the snake never appeared it was illusory, likewise seeming appearances are illusions....

cloudburst said:
there seemed to be a snake means a snake appeared. There is no difference. There cannot seem to be a snake without the appearance of a snake. Is there a snake? no. does a snake appear do the deluded mind. Oh yes, otherwise, remembering that the snake here stands in for the non-existent objects of delusions, we simply would never get deluded. If an intrinsically tasty cake did not appear before the mind, how would we get attached?

If we simply must, we could say "the snake appeared it was illusory" but we can never say as you do " the snake never appeared it was illusory." If it is illusory, appear is all it can do.

krodha wrote:
An illusion appears, no snake, does the illusion resemble a snake? Possibly. Is there a snake? No. Likewise does it seem to appear to a mind? Yes. Does it appear to a mind? No.

asunthatneversets said:
the conventional imputation produces nothing other than illusion, there are no subsequent conventional appearances which can be deemed "like" illusions, because nothing has been established in any way. It is the child of a barren woman, or hair on a tortoise, wholly unreal, a figment of imagination(and not even that). Illusion and only illusion.

cloudburst said:
you need to review Buddha's teachings. Examples like 'a child of a barren woman' and being 'like an illusion' are used to explain very different things. It seems making clear discriminations is something you need to improve, and until you do, your formulations will lack clarity. I'm sure your mother would be disappointed to discover that you can't tell the difference between her and an illusion of her. Did you see Tupac at Cochella? Did you see Snoop? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajkSx_EnAhI&feature=related

krodha wrote:
My formulations will lack clarity in your opinion, yes, judging what I am saying against your reference point you take to be a truth, and I can accept that.


What'd you say bout my momma?!

Although causes, conditions, and dependent arising are explained,
And gradual entry is spoken of,
These are provisional teachings for the ignorant.
In this spontaneously present dharma,
What would it be to train gradually?
Within it's nature beyond limits,
How could composite conceptions be seen?
There is not even the slightest of assertions.
At that time, mind is the sky.
Buddha and the objects of one's experience are one.
- Ye shes snang ba rgyan

The gates to all the branches of enlightenment,
The accoutrements, when meditated on, are like a moon in water.
They arise unstained and unobstructed, 
But when meditated on, they are like childish objects of experience.
- Nam mkha' che


asunthatneversets said:
So the nature of appearances is the controversy, whether they are illusions, or if something is indeed produced via imputation which can be designated as "like an illusion".

cloudburst said:
Precisely. Consult Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti to discover whether or not there is production by imputation. Don't join the hotheads who read with a literal eye, look deeper!

krodha wrote:
You may be one of the hotheads my friend! Imputation produces ignorance, it is the seed which creates all duality, if you believe something is truly produced then I don't see how you can move past that self made limitation, if you feel you can then that is great, but in my eyes it is merely a barrier.

asunthatneversets said:
Which is what I will say when pressed regarding what?

cloudburst said:
see above.
you say "nothing to accept or reject.."
I press, pointing out that Madhyamikas reject essence continually.
You hurriedly point out that you mean "ultimately nothing to accept or reject."

krodha wrote:
Of course, you can accept and reject things all day until you're blue in the face, and some acceptance and rejection is needed to traverse the path of course, again it exists all at once on all levels mirroring the perception of the one doing the imputing. There is nothing to accept or reject, whether that is ultimately true, or just plain true, will be self evident to whom it may concern when it is appropriate.


asunthatneversets said:
I'm not sure what the significance of my original statement including (or not including) "ultimately" is.

cloudburst said:
the significance is that if you say "ultimately, there is nothing to accept or reject," that is wisdom.
If you say there is nothing to accept or reject at all on any level, you are just lost. You MUST accept that gravity draws you to the earth, otherwise you will fall off something. Granted, it is just convention, and you might say that you only "seem" to fall off something, but that's good enough to land you in the hospital, isn't it?

krodha wrote:
I was discussing how acceptance and rejection pertain to correct view, not how acceptance and rejection pertain to gracefully falling off a building, 'there is nothing to accept or reject' means to reject the appearance of relative laws and so on would be an unnecessary (and futile/foolish) activity.

asunthatneversets said:
I'll say it again, accepting or rejecting anything (including the very act of acceptance and the very act of rejection themselves) is a product of delusion.

cloudburst said:
The thing you can really respect about Namdrol (this time, at least) or Andres Honore is that they say the discussion has no meaning for them and they think it is all delusion, and then they back it up by stopping. They walk their talk. If you think this is really all delusion, get out of here, go sit on you cushion and stare blankly off into space, refuse to accept anything do not reject anything, and make us all proud. When you attain the state of Samatabhadra, send help! (sun, I hope you understand I'm just playing, I know sometimes the tone of these things can seem a bit unfriendly...)

krodha wrote:
I enjoy the discussion, I like having inconsistencies in my view drawn out... though that has yet to happen in my opinion. I enjoy a challenge, I enjoy a little debate, I like to think and discuss things and engage with people. It's all in the name of fun. It is undoubtably all delusion, and why I or anyone would refuse to accept anything or reject anything makes no sense, you seem to misunderstand me. You aren't just playing, you wouldn't display or convey a tone of that manner if you didn't subtly or overtly mean it, don't patronize me. That being said, it is still a good time to me, no matter how you react in your own space, it is all well and good. It is a waste of time, but sometimes it's nice to waste time this way.

What this all comes down to is a fundamental difference in view. Just as Namdrol explained before:

Namdrol said:
This is primarily a result of Tsongkhapa's over-intellectualization of Madhyamaka and his inability to differentiate between Candrakirti's POV and Bhavaviveka's, and his ideological commitment to the superiority of Candrakiriti's presentation. 

The idea that Candra's presentation is superior to Bhava's is not unique, but what is unique is Tsongkhapa's simulataneous commitment to the language of logic as a tool to explain Madhyamaka, and as a result we see strange formulations such as "Prasangikas" do not refute valid cognizers and so on, when in fact they clearly do. In point of fact, that Prasangikas who do not reject valid cognizers are only the followers of Tsongkhapa. The rest, from Candrakirti, to Jayananda, and so on, do refute them. 

Also, Buddhist logic never made significant inroads into Chinese philosophy, so much of this talk about valid cognition and so on would sound foreign to a Chinese Buddhist. But because of the trenchant polemics in India between Buddhists and non-Buddhists, there was much discussion of valid cognition and what entailed, since the whole field of pramana was adopted by the Buddhists defensively. 

However, during the time of Nagarjuna there was no well developed school of Buddhist logic, and so we see in texts like Vigrahavyavartani a thorough rejection of the whole notion of valid cognizers since in the end the notion of a valid cognition depends on notions of inherency. So naturally the Chinese were not that interested. 

However, in response to non-Buddhsits,Vasubandhu began to articulate the first epistemological responses to non-Buddhist criticism, his disciple,Dignaga, forumulized the foundations and Buddhist pramana, Dharmakirit elaborated it, and the rest is history. Pramana came to be regarded as one of the Panca Vidya, the five sciences with its understandable impact on Tibetan Buddhism. 

Of course in Dzogchen, the principle is not the two truths, but simple vidyā and avidyā. By comparison, there is only one truth in Dzogchen teachings, vidyā. The rest, falling under the heading of avidyā (ignorance) is fundamentally false —— for example, in the same way that a jaundiced man sees everything as yellow, those who suffering from the jaundice of ignorance never see things as they truly are.

krodha wrote:
Where you see appearances and so on and so forth cloudburst, i see avidyā, to give it any more rope than that would be to reify and impute further when it isn't necessary. That doesn't mean I don't eat cake, or walk down the street, but I don't reify these activities the same way you seem to.

asunthatneversets said:
Acceptance and rejection presuppose a subject existing in relation to objects which can indeed be accepted or rejected, it is not so,

cloudburst said:
it certainly is so! I am reading this, are you not writing it? If you disagree, this is nothing but a object of ridicule for clear-thinking people. Yes, yes, conventionally, seeming..... of course, but that's the only subject and object there can be. Just read your Chandrakirti, accept the conventional as advised and watch the clarity of your thinking improve exponentially.

krodha wrote:
I've never rejected the conventional, I just don't see the use of rolling around in it, creating and reifying constructs which are in truth misnomers. Reifying these designations too thoroughly gives power to the illusion (which in turn binds one to delusion). I don't need the clarity of my thinking to improve, it is like a child building a sand castle. The thinking belongs to no one for I am thought itself, projected onto that which I am not, and apart from the projection there is no me to be found(nor thought to be found)... so striving for the clarity of thought is a futility married to an illusion... the clarity belongs to something else altogether.

....Therefore, from the first instant (ksana) of [the continuum of] mind (citta), the subjective Being (atma-bhava) and all phenomena (sarva-dharma) are present.

From the cathectic-functioning of mentation (cinta) there proceeds the appearance of origination.

Yet no phenomena exists for either ordinary people or for enlightened Saints other than the continuum (santana) of their own mind (citta).

The whole diversity (vicitrata) that exists for the six types [of sentient beings] is just their own internal-contemplation (samadhi).

The mental-continuum (citta-santana) is without boundaries or extension; it is not one thing, nor supported by anything.

Since it has no boundaries, therefore every one of all the infinite realms of existence are one's own body (deha).

In that the infinite realms and the organic creatures [inhabiting those realms] appears as one's body,
it is impossible to define mind and the imprints (vasana) as either one or many.

Everything arises and disappears according to the law of [causally] interdependent co-creation (pratityasamutpada).

And yet, as with a burnt seed, since nothing can arise from nothing, cause and effect cannot actually exist.

Cause and effect, which is fundamental to "Existence" (bhava), is a conceptual discrimination occurring within the essence of Mind-itself, which appears as [both] cause and effect; and yet, since the two [i.e., cause and effect] do not exist as such, creation and destruction [which are dependent on cause and effect] cannot exist either.

Since creation and destruction do not exist, self and other cannot exist; [from whence it follows] since there is no termination (samkrama), [the two extremes of] eternalism and nihilism do not exist either.

Therefore, it is established that the deceptive dualism of Samsara and Nirvana is actually a fiction.

Time (ksana, moment) and locality (sthana, the space or place of phenomena) are indeterminate; temporal duration is a uniquely simultaneous event (sama, unicity), and where the one [i.e., phenomena occupying space] does not occur, the other [i.e., time] does not occur.

Since they are a virtual production (upahita) and not actual (samyak), the vestigial-imprints (vasana) also do not factually exist, and since there then does not exist a sensum (caryavisaya), there can be no substratum (alaya) and no conscious perceiving (vijnapti).

Because there are no boundaries, a focus-of-attention (prabhana) and a locality (sthana), cannot exist. How then can conscious perceiving [i.e., the 'act' of consciousness] arise?

Therefore mind is separate from the alternatives of existence and nonexistence, and is neither one nor many.
In that the Enlightened state of the Blissful Ones is not [objectifiable], the deceit of appearance (abhasa) is like a magical apparition.

In the same way [as Enlightenment is not objectifiable], so also, immaculate Gnosis, and the pure continuum of goodness (kusala) that is the Source of Reality (dharmadhatu), are misconstrued as having an existence, and hence as being objectifiable [i.e., an object separate from consciousness].

But, since there is no such thing as an "absolute place" (Vajra-sthana) the nature of "locality" is all-the-same (sama, a perfect unicity).

And since the Supreme Vajra [i.e., ultimate Being, non-dual Gnosis] per se, [abiding in] the Dimension of Reality, is without boundaries, there can be no "time-moments" (ksana) whatsoever.

With all positive good-qualities (kusala), as the root (mula), no more existent than a reflection, then for certain, worldly knowledge (Jagadjnana) [as the branches] has no reality!....

- Mañjuśrīmitra


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 12:59 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
.... I cannot deny that the resultant emanations of ignorance become vast and perverse, but are they anything other than ignorance(avidyā)?

cloudburst said:
here the snake represents the inherently existent things we grasp at, so no it's not other than ignorance, the point here is that it DOES appear.

krodha wrote:
It certainly seems to.

asunthatneversets said:
The convention arises from imputation as we agreed on before, but does that truly birth an appropriated "thingness" to be deemed as anything warranting any title other than ignorance?

cloudburst said:
haha not sure what an "appropriated thingness" is, but I sense that what you are saying is equivalent to "inherently existent." If so, the answer would be no, of course not. Of course, something is produced conventionally, and we can correctly call it, say a cake, for example.

krodha wrote:
I would not have suggested inherent existence. Again there seems to be an appearance, just as there seems to be the appearance of objects, just as there seems to be objects, all of which are misnomers. The seeming appearances(objects) are predicated on another seeming appearance(subject), an illusion predicated on an illusion does not truly produce an appearance, it seems to appear just as there seemed to be a snake, however the snake never appeared it was illusory, likewise seeming appearances are illusions.... the conventional imputation produces nothing other than illusion, there are no subsequent conventional appearances which can be deemed "like" illusions, because nothing has been established in any way. It is the child of a barren woman, or hair on a tortoise, wholly unreal, a figment of imagination(and not even that). Illusion and only illusion.

asunthatneversets said:
Within the realm of conventional language I can't deny that the apparent population of persons, places, things do indeed seem to be, but upon thorough and proper investigation these same designations are found to be unreal, it's a slippery slope, and I'm sure it does just come down to differing views.

cloudburst said:
I think that anyone who would disagree with what you wrote there would be outside of Buddhism, actually.

krodha wrote:
So the nature of appearances is the controversy, whether they are illusions, or if something is indeed produced via imputation which can be designated as "like an illusion".


asunthatneversets said:
Of course not, my point is meant to convey there is ultimately nothing to accept or reject.

cloudburst said:
This is a helpful example of how muddled and misleading it can be when things are not clearly qualified. When you say "accepting or rejecting anything...." it sounds like you are saying "accepting or rejecting anything.... when what you are actually saying is that " ultimately accepting or rejecting anything...." which is what you will say when pressed. I think your point is correct, nothing exsits ultimately.

krodha wrote:
Which is what I will say when pressed regarding what? Acceptance and rejection, attachment and aversion are the source of all apparent things. In the absence of acceptance and rejection there is nothing to be found, we agree on that, I'm not sure what the significance of my original statement including (or not including) "ultimately" is. I'll say it again, accepting or rejecting anything (including the very act of acceptance and the very act of rejection themselves) is a product of delusion. Acceptance and rejection presuppose a subject existing in relation to objects which can indeed be accepted or rejected, it is not so, again it is illusory. There is nothing to accept or reject.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 9th, 2012 at 5:06 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
the snake never appears

cloudburst said:
then why do you become afraid? Is it not the appearance of a snake?

krodha wrote:
The fear is a product of ignorance no doubt, predicated on the erroneous dualistic notion of a subject/object dichotomy. Just as an appearance is byproduct of dualistic grasping. I cannot deny that the resultant emanations of ignorance become vast and perverse, but are they anything other than ignorance(avidyā)?

The Ground which exists in a primeval, natural flow
Has no existence outside of it's own oneness,
Yet it appears in seven distinct ways
When conceptually delineated 
Under the bias of our distorted perception.

Though it appears in these seven ways,
Such appearance is only due to our non-recognition of it's oneness
Under the influence of the presencing process of it's single essence. 

(i) In the Ground's being spontaneously present,
It appears as the nucleus comprising all variety.

(ii) In it's being indeterminate,
It appears with observable features involving the psyche's flickering movements.

(iii) In it's being determinate within it's own condition,
It appears devoid of transmutation caused by mental activity.

(iv) In it's being capable of transformation,
It appears to a mind's perception in accordance with the perceiver's actions.

(v) In it's being the essence of all that is possible,
It manifests as the intrinsic essence of whatever appears.

(vi) In it's being variegated,
It appears in the mode of individualized variety.

(vii) In it's being originally pure,
It appears as primordially stainless.

All of these appear in accordance with the perceiver's varying intellectual gradations
and perspectives. While it's own condition remains originally pure throughout.

- excerpt from The Six Spheres/Sixfold Expanse Tantra (kLong Drug)

asunthatneversets said:
How is "awareness" any better than "mind"?

cloudburst said:
mind is such a loaded term, we are all using it in different ways. I was thinking perhaps using "awareness" will improve things. perhaps I am wrong here.

krodha wrote:
Well, you're not wrong, I only said that because (like your observation regarding the term "mind") I (also) view the term "awareness" as having become a loaded term nowadays... guilty of manifold implications which lead to erroneous views, but overall my comment was meant to elucidate that like "mind", "awareness" can be misinterpreted as reifying a substantiated suchness relative to(or containing) phenomena. I agree that "mind" would be inappropriate, likewise "awareness" would be too, but then again it all depends on how these terms are related to and the context they appear in.

Designating appearances as the dharmakāya obscures me;
Designating whatever appears as mind obscures me;
Designating wisdom as mind obscures me.
- Samantabhadra

asunthatneversets said:
Denying the use of a phrase such as "with no existence" is also denying something (just as denying the cake is denying something). If he's a nihilist for denying the cake you would likewise be one for denying the denial of the cake.

cloudburst said:
I'm not convinced you are seeing this clearly, sun. If you deny the cake exists, you contravene worldly convention, as we are repeatedly exhorted by Madhyamikas not to do. Claiming a clause incorrectly represents the meaning of what it describes is something rather different.

krodha wrote:
I suppose I don't view the conventional as being an established entity (in any form), be it appearance etc... it is merely a convention. The convention arises from imputation as we agreed on before, but does that truly birth an appropriated "thingness" to be deemed as anything warranting any title other than ignorance? Within the realm of conventional language I can't deny that the apparent population of persons, places, things do indeed seem to be, but upon thorough and proper investigation these same designations are found to be unreal, it's a slippery slope, and I'm sure it does just come down to differing views.

The delusory appearances of conventional truth are a great lie.
When everything is brought into the condition of gnosis in the vast expanse,
The subject and object in flickering awareness, like a child's dance,
Are neutralized in the state of awareness transcending intellect.
- (Unsure where I originally pulled this quote from)

asunthatneversets said:
Accepting and rejecting anything, including acceptance and rejection themselves is still a product of delusion.

cloudburst said:
This reflects a lack of appropriate discrimination. would you attack madhyamikas for continuously rejecting an essence in things?

krodha wrote:
Of course not, my point is meant to convey there is ultimately nothing to accept or reject.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 at 6:58 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
cloudburst said:
The child of the barren woman represents a non-existent. But of course non-existents DO appear, you'll have to agree, otherwise how could Samsara appear? Why would Buddha teach about true appearance, the appearance of an object as truly existent? Non-existent things appear continuously to us.

krodha wrote:
Ok I'd have to respectfully disagree, how does a non-existent appear? A seeming error occurs, but that doesn't mean the subsequent erroneous misconception appears as anything other than an error. There was only ever a rope, the snake never appears, only an error of imputation which creates the illusion of a snake, which is only illusion. Samsara is the same way, it has never appeared as anything other than an error, you could argue that the error and samsara are synonymous, but within the error nothing is established other than ignorance, illusion, delusion(which is in truth likewise unestablished). The buddha taught certain things in order to create an accurate path to follow but it doesn't mean the elements of the teaching are existent. Nothing appears to anyone, only illusion/delusion which dissipates upon the establishment of correct knowledge.


conebeckham said:
Appearances, and specifically "form," appear to the visual consciousness, etc.

cloudburst said:
true.

krodha wrote:
I'd disagree with this as well, but I think my objection just comes down to differing view.


cloudburst said:
I would prefer to say that all conventions are the nature of awareness, some are mundane awarenesses, and some are exalted awarenesses, such as the wisdom realizing emptiness. I think I agree with what you are saying here, although I would quibble about using the term mind in this specialized way without clarifying, as of course objects of wisdom means objects of wisdom-mind, which is a type of mind, or awareness.

krodha wrote:
How is "awareness" any better than "mind"?

conebeckham said:
All such conventional experiences are illusions, with no existence,

cloudburst said:
Here you are, in trouble again. All such conventions, let's say a cake, are surely like illusions, but are not illusions of a cake. You simply can't say "with no existence" or you are a nihilist, at least verbally. There no difference between a 'cake with no existence' and a 'non-existent cake,' unless by 'existence' you mean a particular type of existence, ie essential existence. In that case, you should say so, otherwise you will confuse the issue tremendously.

krodha wrote:
The nihilist or eternalist aspects of the teaching address attachment to a view, which creates the illusion of someone who is attached. Saying the cake has no existence doesn't make one anything depending on how said observation is related to. Denying the use of a phrase such as "with no existence" is also denying something (just as denying the cake is denying something). If he's a nihilist for denying the cake you would likewise be one for denying the denial of the cake. It all comes down to how the view is related to, the true and accurate view stands alone. Accepting and rejecting anything, including acceptance and rejection themselves is still a product of delusion.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 7th, 2012 at 8:24 AM
Title: Re: Tsong Khapa, form realm shamatha and emptiness
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
While we're at it....

Are the desire, form, and formless realms all in samsara?

Or is it only the desire realm that is in samsara?

The Deva Loka for example is in the desire realm right? And since the Deva Loka is the highest Loka of samsara, this would put the form and formless realms above samsara. So then why have I also read that the form and formless realms are also in samsara?

krodha wrote:
I always interpreted form realms to be tangible phenomena such as objects and such, and formless realms to be intangible phenomena such as experiences, emotions, thoughts etc... attachment to (or identification with) either being the tie that binds one to samsara. I know they are interpreted other ways though.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, May 7th, 2012 at 2:35 AM
Title: Re: Protectors in DC question
Content:
pemachophel said:
(As a humorous aside, I had to go to Berkeley, CA during March to attend a teaching with another Lama. Berkeley/SF sitting on the San Andreas fault as they do, you can bet I put in over-time on this practice while I was there.)

krodha wrote:
Thank you, much appreciated by myself, and I'm sure conebeckham and everyone else who lives here


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 5th, 2012 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: Teach & tell me about buddha mind
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
You're already on the path of liberation. The moment you came into contact with the dharma and it caught your interest the path began. But yes Buddha mind is an integral part of it... understanding that your own mind is Buddha mind, and that your own nature is Buddha nature are key aspects of the teaching.

Wesley1982 said:
Thus far, with my mindset I feel like I'm in the physical reality of what really is.

krodha wrote:
At least you know it's a product of your mindset, that means you're already 10 steps ahead of the game... Investigate what makes it "physical" and see if reality claims to be physical, or if reality's physicality is merely a idea (or a belief) projected onto it.

Seek some other possible explanations for reality, perhaps read about sensory perceptions. While the sensory perception view isn't what Buddhism suggests either at least it starts to paint a picture which shows you how "reality" isn't physical at all. How the eyes process information which passes through them by sending it to the brain, which in turn translates the information into a representation. This woud suggest that you aren't looking out of window-like eyes but are indeed experiencing your brain's interpretation of reality. And this goes for all your senses.

From there perhaps look at some quantum physics, which suggests that at the fundamental level the components that construct reality can exist either as waves or particles. And that when the eyes observe the waves they actually collapse into particles, creating an illusion of solidity. When the waves aren't observed they remain in a superposition which is just a field of possibility. This would further suggest that you indeed create reality as you go.

Buddhism doesn't champion either of these views. There's elements of it that point towards these aspects of experience but it actually goes even further.

Some philosophy can help deconstruct reality and physicality as well... David Hume, Brand Blanshard, George Berkeley are a few... Their work deals with perception and how one relates to the senses and thought. Jaques Derrida, Martin Heidegger and others like that as well (though they are a bit more complex than the first few I mentioned).

Buddhism will reflect pieces of all of these but Buddhism is experiential. That being said, these things can help you see through "physicality" and they'll help you understand so that you can gain confidence. Buddhism will actualize these things beyond intellectual understanding so that experience directly becomes that.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, May 5th, 2012 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Teach & tell me about buddha mind
Content:
White Lotus said:
it is often said that mind is emptiness. the christian mystic, St John of the cross writes...''On the path toward God - nada, nada, nada, nada, nada (nothing) and on the mountain of God is written 'on this mountain is nothing'. he is famous for his ''dark night of the soul''.

meister ekhart, the dominican monk and theologian says that God is ''absolute nothingness''; that all existence, which God is, is fundamentally absolute nothingness.

Keiji Nishitani of the kyoto school and a great buddhist philosopher talks in his book ''religion and nothingness'' about the influence of emptiness in western thought and says that even in the nihilism of some western philosopy is found a hankering after the positive realisation of nothingness/emptiness in buddhism.

the higher self of advaita vedanta is said to be seen as the void within. And so we know that experience of emptiness is a universal experience.

i would however say that this ''emptiness'' is not emptiness, nor is it nothingness, nor anythingness. emptiness is merely a label. emptiness is pregnanat with energy and potentiality and so to use this label can be misleading.

hope this is helpful.

best wishes, Tom.

krodha wrote:
Seems that most religions/spiritual traditions began in the theme of discovering these truths. Some have fallen further from the tree than others but whether it be judaeo-christian, Islam etc.. They either presently have "higher schools" within them devoted to "union with god" type endeavors or they had schools/members of their traditions in the past which propagated these truths more clearly than they are today. Buddhism/Hinduism obviously are much more blatant and uncorrupted which makes their teachings/methods more excelled. But I agree that even Christianity had a past which was involved in seeking the truth Buddhism points to, to a certain degree. 5th-6th century Christian theologian/philosopher Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite wrote those two books Divine Names and Mystical Theology one being cataphatic and the other apophatic approaches to full union with "god"... And St. Thomas Acquinas stated that Mystical Theology and it's apophatic approach was the quickest way to reach that union (per Alan Watts). The dharma is the most clear cut method in my opinion.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, May 4th, 2012 at 9:15 AM
Title: Re: Teach & tell me about buddha mind
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
And this understanding of - buddha mind - is one of the dharmas that leads us on the Path to Liberation? . .

krodha wrote:
You're already on the path of liberation. The moment you came into contact with the dharma and it caught your interest the path began. But yes Buddha mind is an integral part of it... understanding that your own mind is Buddha mind, and that your own nature is Buddha nature are key aspects of the teaching.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 6:50 AM
Title: Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)
Content:


seeker242 said:
Everyone is saved, they just have to do what the Buddha taught to do.

asunthatneversets said:
I'd say the Buddhas recipe is more akin to helping one realize that the poison, arrow, victim, assailant, the task of removing the arrow, the treatment of the poison and the one saved were all figments of a dream which dissipates upon awakening.

Being "saved" has a bit of a western overtone to it (in my opinion).

seeker242 said:
There are just conventional terms IMO, that make grammatical sense. I don't think it's all that western. After all, the Bodhisattva vow, is to save all beings from suffering.

krodha wrote:
True, however the bodhisattva, (having seen the mountain top) remains unattached to his/her compassionate action and (although [s]he takes her/his task seriously, [s]he) knows that ultimately the "act of saving" and "sentient beings" themselves are merely illusions within the dream.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, May 3rd, 2012 at 1:56 AM
Title: Re: Teach & tell me about buddha mind
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
So . . There's not much the mind does other than interpret reality.

krodha wrote:
For the mind to interpret reality, reality would have to exist separately from mind. Mind creates reality(as an emanation of itself), the two are one and the same.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 1:11 PM
Title: Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)
Content:


seeker242 said:
Not really! The Buddha gave a recipe of how to treat the poison as well as remove the arrow, none of which involves anything about who shot the first arrow or why. We already have all the information necessary about how to save the victim. More information is unnecessary.

shel said:
Well... I very glad that you've been saved!

seeker242 said:
Everyone is saved, they just have to do what the Buddha taught to do.

krodha wrote:
I'd say the Buddhas recipe is more akin to helping one realize that the poison, arrow, victim, assailant, the task of removing the arrow, the treatment of the poison and the one saved were all figments of a dream which dissipates upon awakening.

Being "saved" has a bit of a western overtone to it (in my opinion).


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 12:40 PM
Title: Re: Teach & tell me about buddha mind
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
And the mind connects to the brain which connects to the body. Am I missing something here? or does the dharma of religious practice train the mind leading to awakening/enlightenment? . .

krodha wrote:
"Mind" is used in different ways in Buddhism depending on the context of the teaching. It's most often associated with thought/memory, the stream of thought and memory is said to constitute "the mind". In other instances it can be used as a synonym for consciousness.

Being raised in the west and living under the reigning scientific paradigms which have nurtured our view of reality, we usually approach the world in a very materialist/physicalist outlook. And because of this it is deemed common sense to see things as you suggested above "mind connects to brain which connects to body", however Buddhism points to a different truth. In Buddhism the mind and body(and world) are intermittent states depending on the point of view taken (and ultimately there ends up being no mind, body or world at all).

These views may also change as one continues on the path. One may start with the outlook: "the mind is in the body" and then change to "the body is in the mind" which may evolve into "the body and mind are one" to "there is no body or mind" etc... there are no ultimate truths except for wisdom (vidyā) and even that is ultimately found to be empty. So a statement made at the beginning of ones path may be contradicted and/or even discarded completely as one progresses and it's important to keep this in mind and remain open. Look at the path as a process of shedding ignorance and/or dismantling these little structures of identity and views we have built(and maintained) through the years. Just as in demolishing a building one wants to end up with nothing, seek to associate the endpoint in Buddhism as having removed and deconstructed all of the ignorance which has spawned separation and suffering.

"Buddha Mind" as a full title may also refer to Buddha nature (Tathāgatagarbha) or even the mind of a fully awakened individual, again it depends on the context, seems that you were asking about the thought/memory based mind though from what I can gather.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012 at 6:57 AM
Title: Re: The brain and Dzogchen...
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
Its plausible that certain areas of the brain are "activated" or "energized" when engaged in Buddhist meditation and other practices of conscious-awareness.

krodha wrote:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-wuOYlxMSY


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 1st, 2012 at 1:42 PM
Title: Re: What creates the illusion of time?
Content:
Yontan said:
That's the point. We can't sit in a world of things and wonder how "time isn't real."

krodha wrote:
Since time is dependent on a thing (bhāva), how can time [exist] without a thing?
There is not any thing which exists; how, then, will time become [something]?" 

- Nāgārjuna


Nāgārjuna is saying that for time to exist; an entity(subject) with the means to legitimately grasp and measure other persons, places and things(object) must also exist. Since no such entity can be found upon investigation, said entity is unreal. Likewise contrasting persons, places and things are equally unreal. Therefore time does not exist.

There is no one sitting in relation to any thing, in any world, these imputed notions are merely symptoms of ignorance.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 1st, 2012 at 3:18 AM
Title: Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)
Content:
shel said:
Hate to be repetitive but don't there gotta be a door before an entry...

krodha wrote:
"Recognizing oneself" is a phrase used to convey the nature of the realization... It isn't meant to suggest that a self is indeed making this discovery. The nature of the realization transcends the conventional law of cause and effect as well, so while it may seem commonsensical to frame it causally using an analogy like "door before entry", comparing it to a process of that sort wouldn't be applicable in this context.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, May 1st, 2012 at 1:07 AM
Title: Re: What creates the illusion of time?
Content:
Yontan said:
Time is as real as anything else....

krodha wrote:
Which means it isn't real at all.


"If the present and future exist presupposing the past,
The present and future will exist in the past.

If the present and future did not exist there [in the past],
How could the present and future exist presupposing that past? 

Without presupposing the past the two things [the present and future] cannot be proved to exist.
Therefore neither present nor future time exist. 

In this way the remaining two [times] can be inverted. 
Thus one would regard highest, lowest and middle, etc., as oneness and difference.  (or after, before and middle, or right, left and middle)

A non-stationary time cannot be grasped; and a stationary time which can be grasped does not exist.
How, then, can one perceive time if it is not grasped? 

Since time is dependent on a thing (bhāva), how can time [exist] without a thing?
There is not any thing which exists; how, then, will time become [something]?" 

- Nāgārjuna


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 30th, 2012 at 2:40 PM
Title: Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)
Content:
krodha wrote:
"In the transcendental truth there is no origination (utpada), and in fact, there is no destruction (nirodha). The Buddha is like the sky (which has neither origination nor cessation), and the beings are like him, and therefore they are of the same nature."

"He who realizes the transcendental truth knowing the pratītyasamutpāda (or the manifestation of entities depending on their causes and conditions), knows the world to be śūnya and devoid of beginning, middle or end."

"One who imagines that even the most subtle thing arises: Such an ignorant man does not see what it means to be dependently born!"
(i.e. Nothing is being reborn or liberated: One has to see the real nature of being dependently born, of rebirths. There is no continuity, nor discontinuity between lives, or from saṃsāra to nirvāṇa. To think that things are really arising or ceasing with dependent origination is to miss the point of this teaching.)

"Neither atom of form exists nor is sense organ elsewhere;
Even more no sense organ as agent exists;
So the producer and the produced
Are utterly unsuited for production."

"In brief from empty phenomena
Empty phenomena arise;
Agent(cause), karma(action), fruits(effect), and their enjoyer(subject) - 
The conqueror taught these to be [only] conventional.

Just as the sound of a drum as well as a shoot
Are produced from a collection [of factors],
We accept the external world of dependent origination
To be like a dream and an illusion.

That phenomena are born from causes
Can never be inconsistent [with facts];
Since the cause is empty of cause,
We understand it to be empty of origination."

- Nāgārjuna


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 28th, 2012 at 12:44 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
White Lotus said:
water is just water.

gregkavarnos said:
Not if it's Perrier!

krodha wrote:
And not if it's Perrier accompanied with a conversation about Dharma with Greg Kavarnos while an old re-run of 'Dharma & Greg' is playing on the TV in the background.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 28th, 2012 at 12:18 AM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
White Lotus said:
just shoes, just hot chocolate, nothing crypic. just reality; no fabrications or theories (views).

just shoes, just hot chocolate, just typing to you right now. thats all.

asunthatneversets said:
Some degree of truth to that but such statements leave room for misinterpretation wouldn't you say? They convey one fold emptiness(absence of self) but subtly give credence to objects and processes. One may misconstrue insight like this as suggesting the existence of an objective world which remains after the natural state has been actualized.

deepbluehum said:
[Thrusting a nail in Zen] Awesome!

krodha wrote:
[Thrusting a nail in thrusting a nail in Zen] Equally awesome.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 27th, 2012 at 11:50 PM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
White Lotus said:
just shoes, just hot chocolate, nothing crypic. just reality; no fabrications or theories (views).

just shoes, just hot chocolate, just typing to you right now. thats all.

krodha wrote:
Some degree of truth to that but such statements leave room for misinterpretation wouldn't you say? They convey one fold emptiness(absence of self) but subtly give credence to objects and processes. One may misconstrue insight like this as suggesting the existence of an objective world which remains after the natural state has been actualized.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 27th, 2012 at 4:02 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Or perhaps you misunderstood what he was attempting to convey.

Sherab said:
What does it imply to say that the ultimate basis of a table is the imputation of a table?

That
(1) the table as an object is merely a subjective imputation of the mind, and that there is really no physical table out there?  If so, then there is really no physical things and that all things are mental phenomena.  You would therefore be subscribing to the tenet of Mind Only School.

krodha wrote:
The table as an object being a subjective imputation of mind would be just as much an imputation as considering it to be an actual object. What do you mean "out there?", there's no physical table out where? So if these alleged things aren't physical then they're automatically reduced to being mental? Why mental? Why physical? I surely do not subscribe to yogācāra.

Sherab said:
Or, that
(2) there is a physical table out there but that is not important.  What is important is the mental image of the table (the imputed table) and its relation to the mind that imputes it?  If so, then the path to enlightenment is purely a psychological process and not connected at all with the physical realm.  The physical realm that we inhibit does not have any karmic relation with its inhabitants.  It would also mean that the stories we hear about siddhas exercising control over physical matter such as multiplying of food, conversion of one thing to another are only that – stories, and not to be taken literally.

krodha wrote:
Again one would allow presuppositions of external physicality to govern their view, both of which are misnomers. Why is the image mental? Are you implying there is a separately existent noumenal table-suchness which is inaccessible due to residing beyond the limits of one's allegedly conditioned perception? And this alleged noumena is then translated by the mind? You again assume that there is a psychological realm existing in relation to a physical realm, internal and external, subjective and objective... skillfully applied emptiness decimates these notions. And as for these siddhas, they would certainly have a rough time exercising control over anything in this proposed schematic you've laid out.

asunthatneversets said:
Or he knew that vertical D.O. is ultimately evaluating and deconstructing misnomers even more so than horizontal D.O. is.

Sherab said:
I have no idea what you are saying.  Please explain.

krodha wrote:
In this vertical D.O. you speak of, deconstructing 'objective things' into constituent parts, elements, particles and so on and so forth... by being enveloped and unwittingly overtaken by such a process one again allows their activity to be governed by the assumption that they as a subject are indeed deconstructing an objective thing. If one isn't careful they may allow their perception to be governed and deceived by assumed designations which are in truth empty, and in doing so they unknowingly construct an imprisoned and constricted view which severs them from seeing the true nature of reality. Dependent origination has to go all the way, annihilating all designations, or else one will fall short and remain in ignorance.

37. Since the Buddhas have stated
That the world is conditioned by ignorance,
So why is it not reasonable [to assert]
That this world is [a result of] conceptualization?

10. When the perfect gnosis sees
That things come from ignorance as condition,
Nothing will be objectified, 
Either in terms of arising or destruction.

12. And even with respect to subtle things
One imputes originations,
Such an utterly unskilled person does not see
The meaning of conditioned origination.

18. Those who impute arising and disintegration
With relation to conditioned things,
They do not understand the movement
Of the wheel of dependent origination.

26. Devoid of locus, there is nothing to objectify;
Rootless, they have no fixed abode;
They arise totally from the cause of ignorance,
Utterly devoid of beginning, middle and end.

33. Just as the Buddhas have spoken of 
"I" and "mine" for a practical purpose;
Likewise they spoke too of "aggregates,"
"Elements" and "sense-fields" for practical reasons.

35. Inasmuch as the Conquerors have stated
Nirvana is the sole truth, 
What learned person would imagine
That the rest is not false?

- excerpts from Nāgārjuna's 60 Stanzas of Reasoning


asunthatneversets said:
In implementing vertical D.O. one is surely confined to the alleged realm of phenomena, breaking an object down into constituent particles etc... at least in horizontal there's a chance of one taking it back to the realm of the senses and consciousness which is somewhat closer to the mark. That is why I said it's appropriate to eventually venture into horizontal D.O. if one is going to move further down the rabbit hole, otherwise one just reifies and evaluates conventional misconceptions.

Sherab said:
You are exhibiting exactly the fear that I mentioned earlier.  There is no need for vertical D.O. to lead to reification or monism.

krodha wrote:
Vertical D.O. begins under the umbrella of reification. It is reification by nature, it doesn't need to lead to reification, it is wrought with it(that isn't to say it's not effective and an excellent method). So beginning under the umbrella of reification, it then seeks to dismantle said reification, for those who are unskilled it certainly may lead to wrong view.

asunthatneversets said:
Exercises like Candrakīrti's Chariot are all well and good, and can be effective tools when properly implemented, but surely not what I was pointing towards. And I wasn't making an argument, just a suggestion.

Sherab said:
I am merely saying that “beyond the name "table" there is no table to be found” is plain wrong.  There is a dependently arisen table to be found (and of course that dependently arisen table in the final analysis is merely an illusion.)

krodha wrote:
For purposes of conventional discussion, employing the concept of a table, and then following through with the subsequent declaration that said table is undoubtably dependently arisen is more than acceptable, and yes upon final analysis it's found to be merely an illusion, I agree. So how is my stating "beyond the name 'table' there is no table to be found" plain wrong? If we're both agreeing that beyond the convention there is merely illusion? Do these dependently arisen causes and conditions actually create a table to be deconstructed and analyzed in the first place? I think not, if you disagree you are welcome to.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 27th, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
He may have been alluding to the fact that the ultimate basis of the table is the imputation "the table" itself, but that doesn't necessarily need to backtrack into "mental image" or "mind" being that those designations are just as imputed.

Sherab said:
I asked specifically about the ultimate basis of every phenomona using only the table as an example.  I believed he heard me correctly.  So he either interpreted my question wrongly or side-stepped my question.

krodha wrote:
Or perhaps you misunderstood what he was attempting to convey.

Sherab said:
I believed he interpreted my question wrongly and so answered as if it was a question on horizontal D.O.  Reason for this?  That was how he was taught.  He probably never thought about the possibility of vertical D.O.

krodha wrote:
Or he knew that vertical D.O. is ultimately evaluating and deconstructing misnomers even more so than horizontal D.O. is.

asunthatneversets said:
I'd argue that the vertical is just as unending as the horizontal, but the vertical should eventually begin to circle around back into the horizontal if one is applying dependent origination correctly... it's just where does one take it from there.

Sherab said:
This looks suspiciously like a specie of circular reasoning. http://www.atheistnexus.org/photo/circular-reasoning-works " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Worse, it keeps you firmly in realm of phenomena.

krodha wrote:
In implementing vertical D.O. one is surely confined to the alleged realm of phenomena, breaking an object down into constituent particles etc... at least in horizontal there's a chance of one taking it back to the realm of the senses and consciousness which is somewhat closer to the mark. That is why I said it's appropriate to eventually venture into horizontal D.O. if one is going to move further down the rabbit hole, otherwise one just reifies and evaluates conventional misconceptions.

And this is actually a species of circular reasoning looking suspicious ---->

asunthatneversets said:
How do the strands which form the web of dependent origination string together to create this weaving interdependency, and where are the foundational strands that (if severed) topple the whole web? Imputation is the weight bearing strand in this web of illusion. The Geshe may have been attempting to convey that beyond the name "table" there is no table to be found.

Sherab said:
This sort of argument reminds of the popular chariot argument which is not valid as argued by Ven Nanavira:

Let us first consider the validity of the argument. If a chariot is taken to pieces, and a man is then shown the pieces one by one, each time with the question 'Is this a chariot?', it is obvious that he will always say no. And if these pieces are gathered together in a heap, and he is shown the heap, then also he will say that there is no chariot. If, finally, he is asked whether apart from these pieces he sees any chariot, he will still say no. But suppose now that he is shown these pieces assembled together in such a way that the assemblage can be used for conveying a man from place to place; when he is asked he will undoubtedly assert that there is a chariot, that the chariot exists. According to the argument, the man was speaking in the conventional sense when he asserted the existence of the chariot, and in the highest sense when he denied it. But, clearly enough, the man (who has had no training in such subtleties) is using ordinary conventional language throughout; and the reason for the difference between his two statements is to be found in the fact that on one occasion he was shown a chariot and on the others he was not. If a chariot is taken to pieces (even in imagination) it ceases to be a chariot; for a chariot is, precisely, a vehicle, and a heap of components is not a vehicle—it is a heap of components. (If the man is shown the heap of components and asked 'Is this a heap of components?', he will say yes.) In other words, a chariot is most certainly an assemblage of parts, but it is an assemblage of parts in a particular functional arrangement, and to alter this arrangement is to destroy the chariot. It is no great wonder that a chariot cannot be found if we have taken the precaution of destroying it before starting to look for it. If a man sees a chariot in working order and says 'In the highest sense there is no chariot; for it is a mere assemblage of parts', all he is saying is 'It is possible to take this chariot to pieces and to gather them in a heap; and when this is done there will no longer be a chariot'. The argument, then, does not show the non-existence of the chariot; at best it merely asserts that an existing chariot can be destroyed. And when it is applied to an individual (i.e. a set of pañcakkhandhā) it is even less valid; for not only does it not show the non-existence of the individual, but since the functional arrangement of the pañcakkhandhā cannot be altered, even in imagination, it asserts an impossibility, that an existing individual can be destroyed. As applied to an individual (or a creature) the argument runs into contradiction; and to say of an individual 'In the highest sense there is no individual; for it is a mere asemblage of khandhā' is to be unintelligible.

krodha wrote:
Exercises like Candrakīrti's Chariot are all well and good, and can be effective tools when properly implemented, but surely not what I was pointing towards. And I wasn't making an argument, just a suggestion.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 27th, 2012 at 9:47 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
Sherab said:
I once asked a Geshe what is the ultimate basis of a table since table depends on top and legs, etc.  I was alluding to the vertical type of DO.  His reply was the table is the ultimate basis of the table.  In other words, he was alluding to the horizontal type of DO.  ( Table -> Mental image of table <-> mind )

krodha wrote:
He may have been alluding to the fact that the ultimate basis of the table is the imputation "the table" itself, but that doesn't necessarily need to backtrack into "mental image" or "mind" being that those designations are just as imputed. I'd argue that the vertical is just as unending as the horizontal, but the vertical should eventually begin to circle around back into the horizontal if one is applying dependent origination correctly... it's just where does one take it from there. How do the strands which form the web of dependent origination string together to create this weaving interdependency, and where are the foundational strands that (if severed) topple the whole web? Imputation is the weight bearing strand in this web of illusion. The Geshe may have been attempting to convey that beyond the name "table" there is no table to be found.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 27th, 2012 at 6:08 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
So according to you, the circle and the sentient being both lack essence, but the sentient being is deemed truly existent while the circle isn't?

cloudburst said:
no.

krodha wrote:
Then you're proposing that the sentient being/firebrand lack essence (but are truly existent) and the circle exists in no way whatsoever?

asunthatneversets said:
When you say the sentient being and circle both mutually lack essence, what do you mean by that?

cloudburst said:
I mean the same as you see in the writings of the great Indian Madhyamikas, like Nagarjuna, Buddhapalita, Aryadeva, and Chandrakirti.  All phenomena are empty of, or lack, a nature of their own.

krodha wrote:
I understand that, I was inquiring about your own interpretation of the great Indian Mādhyamakas, because your assertions seem to contradict the view Mādhyamaka conveys and generates (or at least it conflicts with my own interpretation).

asunthatneversets said:
How do two essenceless 'things' acquire contrasting designations regarding their respective existences?

cloudburst said:
They do not. One exists and is essenceless, which is the only way anything can exist, the other does not exist in any fashion.

krodha wrote:
So in what manner does this essenceless manifestation truly exist? To arrive at your conclusion of essencelessness, (in the case of the sentient being and firebrand) are you approaching the deconstruction of these alleged "objects" from the standpoint of initially accepting their objecthood as genuinely valid, and then proceeding (under the influence of that presupposition) with the application of emptiness? In granting the sentient being and/or firebrand the title of "existent" it seems that dependent origination is either being applied incorrectly or is falling short of it's intended mark... this could simply be a difference in views though. I'm failing to understand how emptiness allows what you're suggesting(even under the guise of the conventional/absolute dichotomy).

asunthatneversets said:
What is the nature of said 'essence' which is lacked (according to you)?

cloudburst said:
It has no nature as it it has no existence whatever.

krodha wrote:
If the firebrand and sentient being both exist but lack essence. And the lacked essence in turn naturally lacks existence. How then are the firebrand and sentient being acquiring existence? For something to exist, isn't essential being required? Since they both lack essence(and are found to be empty when meticulously investigated), wouldn't it seem they are misconceptions? And are therefore the same as the illusory fire circle?


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 26th, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
cloudburst said:
no, becasue there is a sentient being there, but there is no circle.
yes, that's true. But the perception that the circle appear to exist at all is a mistake, whereas to say htat the sentient being and stick exist is not a mistake, as long as you do not mean existence by way of an essence. It is the failure to make this key distinction, at least the failure to make it explicitly, that continually reduces your position to something less than it might otherwise be.

krodha wrote:
So according to you, the circle and the sentient being both lack essence, but the sentient being is deemed truly existent while the circle isn't? How do you come to this conclusion? When you say the sentient being and circle both mutually lack essence, what do you mean by that? Can you elaborate? How do two essenceless 'things' acquire contrasting designations regarding their respective existences? What is the nature of said 'essence' which is lacked (according to you)?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 at 3:45 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
5heaps said:
the illusions are the internal beliefs that the rainbow can be touched, the internal beliefs that the mirage is actual water, and internal beliefs that the cake has the self-nature of cake.

therefore theres nothing wrong with the cake itself. the cake is 100% utterly fine and utterly real, only the internal conceptions (and even the nonconceptual sense consciousness, uniquely asserted by Gelugs) must be fixed and are the illusions. therefore, the object themselves are ONLY like-an-illusion with respective to a defective mind apprehending them. the cake with respect to a nondefective mind is not an illusion nor like-an-illusion. its just a fullblown direct nonconceptual cognition of the cake....

krodha wrote:
So you accept that the subject is empty and illusory, but somehow the object gets away with being utterly real?

And then if the (allegedly internal) mind which is apprehending this allegedly external cake is deemed defective (with some type of "wrong view") then the cake is indeed like-an-illusion. But if the very same mind is deemed nondefective (and upholds what you consider to be "right view") then the previously defective cake undergoes metamorphosis and becomes 100% utterly fine and utterly real and is neither an illusion nor like-an-illusion?

"....Because of a lack of mindful attention,
self and other are grasped as a duality,
and both outer and inner dependent origination occur. 
The whole universe arises
through awareness looking externally. 
All sentient being arise 
through awareness looking internally.
Through looking there, fearful appearances arise,
through looking here, ‘self’ arises. 
Many mistakes arise from the single mistake
about the appearances of here and there. 
Because of being mistaken about a self, there is a mistake about other, 
attachment to self, aversion to other.
From the seed of attachment and aversion,
the whole outer universe and inhabitants are mistakes. 
Because one is held as two,
that is called the delusion of dualistic grasping.
Since one imputed and mistook outer and inner,
that is called “the imputing ignorance”. 
Because of familiarity of subject and object of that, 
from the thick buildup of traces,
there was entrance into the state of samsara.
That is how the six migrations occurred.”
- excerpt from Uprooting Delusion Tantra


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 at 9:02 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
Content:


Nangwa said:
Thats a possibility I suppose but even bodhisattvas in the human realm need penises and vaginas in order to take birth.

Sonam Wangchug said:
'

Than what's your take on Guru Rinpoche?

krodha wrote:
Some say Guru Rinpoche's father was Drenpa Namkha.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 at 5:56 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
It is widely held as Christian dogma that Jesus son of Mary was conceived/born without a human father.

David N. Snyder said:
Virgin births stories were around long before Jesus. Osiris and other virgin birth mythologies existed hundreds of years before the Christian birth story was created. Greek mythology (which dates to well before the time of Jesus) is full of stories of gods impregnating mortal women. The influence of Greek culture on the early Christians no doubt led to the creation of that story....

krodha wrote:
Though it's met fierce resistance from Christians who have attempted to debunk this info, this first section of the 2007 documentary Zeitgeist covers the long list of virgin births which predated jesus. I believe there are rebuttal videos (assembled by christians) which attempt to smear Zeitgeist, and then further subsequent debunking (of the christian debunking) done by Zeitgeist proponents. It's definitely an ongoing back and forth controversy (as any good religious debate should be), but here's the original video:

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZgT1SRcrKE


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 at 5:14 AM
Title: Re: Mind/Rigpa and body relation
Content:
mzaur said:
Ah, that's a great analogy. Thanks

krodha wrote:
Another good analogy is the attempt to describe the color red to someone blind since birth. The knowledge is a direct, innate, first hand apperceiving. Fully experiential. The intellect actually serves as a double edged sword in actualizing the truth rigpa represents, knowing the right balance is key(intellect will point you in the right direction but cannot take you there).


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 25th, 2012 at 4:18 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
Content:
krodha wrote:
The fundamental underlying assumption is that this story of jesus has authority in and of itself. The bible is merely a book with stories in it, it has no power or authority by itself. Any legitimacy or power it has is solely what is imputed upon it. One has to believe it, and belief is no different than opinion. Just as I am stating my belief/opinion at this moment. Things are what we make them, we like to believe it is the other way around. Just because there is a collective movement behind a certain belief or opinion doesn't make it legitimate, however in most cases it ends up becoming a paradigm which delegates a pseudo-standard of legitimacy via default.

A belief stands alone, and then one either forms attachment or aversion to it. If attachment occurs the belief has to be defended because it doesn't have any power by itself. One has to fight to uphold it's legitimacy and will seek others who mirror their own beliefs so they can feel comfortable and reinforced. The same goes for one who forms aversion to a belief, they fall victim to the same factors. Disbelief is still belief, one only believes the opposite extreme. Due to these attachments or aversions suffering arises, conflict, war (within and without).

It can be seen unraveling in this very thread, where we are attached, where we avert. The finding of sources to back up claims which reinforce points of view regarding ones respective position on a belief or opinion. These are the seeds of separation. Myself, I see the game and I bow out.

That being said, I enjoy Buddhism because the belief aspect of it is irrelevant. It is an empirical investigation and an experiential endeavor. Belief eventually becomes a binding factor in Buddhism (and can hold one back). Though I am happy for those who benefit from believing whatever it is they choose to believe (and if benefit is derived from it that is a good thing), my not so humble opinion is that belief is slavery.

And I don't fall victim to that opinion because it's seen for what it is, it is consciously employed, and holds no power other than that which I give it (unless of course I share it publicly like I just did then it is also endowed with the power others give it, and thus the seeds of karma are sewn).


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 23rd, 2012 at 7:46 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist opinions about the Historical Jesus
Content:
krodha wrote:
He looks like that guy from The Passion Of The Christ who got tortured the whole movie and then nailed to that lowercase 't' looking thing at the end.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 22nd, 2012 at 1:17 PM
Title: Re: What happens when all sentient beings attain Buddhahood?
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
What happens when all sentient beings attain Buddhahood?


All the "gods" in the upper realms convene for a council? . .

krodha wrote:
Well they better convene now because there'll be no gods left when all sentient beings attain buddhahood


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 22nd, 2012 at 1:09 AM
Title: Re: How are teachers like Mangos?
Content:


Jikan said:
is David Bowie a Dzogchenpa?  (I haven't squeezed his produce to find out)

again...


krodha wrote:
Could be! He gets down with the crystal ball...
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


And as for the produce, if you watch the rest of that movie his fancy pants are practically painted on, it's like a veritable produce preview extraordinaire... terrifying.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 21st, 2012 at 6:35 AM
Title: Re: How are teachers like Mangos?
Content:
krodha wrote:
They certainly are few and far between, Lopon Tenzin Namdak and Chatral Rinpoche also come to mind(though I don't know them personally). I'm sure there's some dark horses out there who have yet to (or may never) publicly grace us as well. The true heavy hitters (who are still living) could very well be in the single digits though, would not surprise me in the least.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 20th, 2012 at 10:08 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism in a Nutshell: The Four Seals of Dharma
Content:
krodha wrote:
I couldn't resist.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 20th, 2012 at 3:30 AM
Title: Re: NON-DUALITY
Content:
Mariusz said:
The answer from Mahayanists against this so called Hvasang Mahayana was "mental nonengagement".

Dronma said:
I agree with Mariusz in that: "Ordinary beings who enjoy Samsara usually take suffering as the pleasure or escape from it to neutral feelings". 
Surely, neutral feeling has nothing to do with the end of suffering! 
Zombification or not, it can be a subtle trap for practitioners. 
It is the first time I hear about Hvasang Mahayana, though. Very interesting....

krodha wrote:
In the book "The Practice Of Dzogchen" which is Tulku Thondup's translation of Longchenpa there's a section called Dzogpa Chenpo And Ha-Shang Mahāyāna (Pg. 112) which compares and contrasts notable distinctions between the two. I was going to type out what it said but it's actually pretty lengthy. It comments on the dangers of the neutral zombie like state Ha-Shang Mahāyāna embraces and I believe has some stories about monks who were found frozen in a state of mindless samādhi and had to be revived. Not a good route!


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 20th, 2012 at 2:52 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
trevor said:
Illusion is something that gives a false impression. Is it true that all appearances give false impression of being inherently existent?

maybay said:
It is not true. Who sees the suchness of appearances does not see the imaginary, imputed, and false impression of them being inherently existent.

krodha wrote:
They certainly should if it's a genuine apperceiving of suchness which transcends the imaginary, imputed, and false impression of observer and observed.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 19th, 2012 at 1:56 PM
Title: Re: The permanence of enlightenment
Content:
mzaur said:
Could you clarify what you mean by abiding and non-abiding?

I've heard it said that Theravada is a cosmic suicide club... that the goal is complete cessation of existence. Is that what is meant by non-abiding?

krodha wrote:
Abiding essentially means permanent... perfect buddhahood. Non-abiding would be an experience of liberation which would have lasting effects and implications, but in time afflicted perception would eventually creep back in. But even within the tenets of buddhahood there are certain attributes which distinguish the nature of that buddhahood; within Dzogchen for example there is buddhahood that reverts to the cause and buddhahood which doesn't revert to the cause... among many other differences.

Namdrol said:
.....But....there are two kinds of buddhahood discussed in Dzogchen; buddhahood that reverts to the cause and the buddhahood that does not revert the cause. 

Those whose buddhahood was incomplete can still fall into sentient being hood if they do not recognize the arising of the basis as being their own display......
There are, if you recall, three stages of Buddhahood. Since the first two stages of Buddhahood do not realized all phenomena as the display of their own wisdom, the eleventh and twelfth bhumi are not complete buddhahood, this true even in Sarma schools. 

N
There are two ways these things are explained, the common way, which accords with lower vehicles, in which the basis and the result are more or less the same. 

Then there is the uncommon way Dzogchen explains these things, in which the basis and the result are different from that of the lower vehicles. 

For example, in general, the nine yānas approach is to assert that all-basis is dharmakāya. In the special Dzogchen view, asserting that dharmakāya is the ālaya is a "Buddhist deviation". In Dzogchen, the ālaya is, as stated in the Mind Tantra of Vajrasattva:

'The all-basis is the bardo of everything,
unconsciousness, unclear, and inexpressible.'

The example for the ālaya is space. The example for the dharmakāya is celestial bodies. 

So you see, it is really not so simple as proclaiming that the basis and the result are the same for all schools, only the result differs. 

For example, the Samputa maintains there is a distinct different in omniscience between an eleventh and twelfth stage buddha, and a thirteenth stage Buddha. Related to this, Dzogchen refers to the 13-16 bhumis as those that "dwell in wisdom". Why? Because only 13th stage Vajradhara's on up understand that all appearances are the display of their own wisdom. 

Most people think that Buddhahood is irreversible; Dzogchen on the other hand asserts that the buddhahood of the lower yanas is reverts into the basis, and only Dzogchen results in complete and irreversible buddhahood. 

These are the kinds of things you discover when you read Vima Nyingthig, Khandro Nyingthig, Gongpa Zangthal, the Seventeen tantras and so on. 

The later in Tibetan history you go, the more homogenized the presentation of the four schools becomes. When you exam the texts of the Pre-Sarma period, then you find Dzogchen is really very different from what was introduced from India during the time of Rinchen Zangpo onwards. 

Dzogchen did not spread widely in India, neither did anuyoga. The main tantric teaching of India was Yoga Tantra/Mahayoga. 

Many masters to not present whole picture of Dzogchen. HHDL's agenda, which I respect, is to bring harmony to all schools. 

My interest is a little different -- I am interested in what makes Dzogchen so unique and so powerful. I know the difference between what is commonly stated as a nice political thing so Sakyas, Gelugpas and Sarma-oriented Kagyus  don't feel bad, and what the real teachings of Dzogchen say, but are not so publicized. I don't owe allegiance to any school. My interest these days in particular is solely anuyoga and Dzogchen teachings. 

That being said, don't think that I consider Lamdre, etc., as lacking depth, efficacy, or profundity -- they are profound, interesting, and wonderful teachings. I just think Dzogchen is more profound, more efficacious, and deeper. This is just my opinion.

N

It is because buddhahood of lower yānas is incomplete and does not reach the stage of ka dag chen po, great original purity. The simplest way to explain it is that after the this universe dissolves and the next one arises, those beings who have not achieved the stage of ka dag chen po start all over. 

N

krodha wrote:
Regarding Theravāda, it isn't like that at all... it's just the most traditional form of buddhism, Theravāda literally translates to "the Teaching of the Elders" or "the Ancient Teaching," and is sometimes referred to as Hīnayāna which translates to "Inferior Vehicle", "Deficient Vehicle", the "Abandoned Vehicle", or the "Defective Vehicle" however the term Hīnayāna isn't very endearing, and though widely used, is considered improper. In Theravāda they practice according to the original sutras attributed to Śākyamuni Buddha and in their realization is for them alone which makes them pratyekabuddhas. Some claim that the pratyekas realization is equivalent to that of a bodhisattva, the difference being that a bodhisattva works for the liberation of all sentient beings. Others however say that in order to even achieve proper buddhahood one must abide by the bodhisattva ideal of working for the benefit of all beings, and therefore they denounce the pratyekabuddha's realization as inferior. The sister forum of dharmawheel is http://www.dhammawheel.com which is pretty much exclusively Theravāda I believe. You can find some good information there regarding that vehicle and it's tenets.

The goal of most vehicles can be said to be aiming at a glimpse of cessation and/or total cessation. However the cessation is the cessation of ignorance which arises from identifying with a personalized view of reality. The fact that we take ourselves to be individuals who were born, exist in time and eventually die is ignorance(avidyā) according to buddhism. The proliferation and evolution of ignorance is the cycle of samsara, and the Dharma is the method to transcend samsara, thus reaching nirvana. So while I wouldn't call it a "cessation of existence" per se, it is the cessation of everything which could be considered "you". I suppose the absence of individual 'being' can be perceived/interpreted as some sort of non-existence to those unfamiliar and possibly intimidated by such a notion. But the state of cessation is in fact your natural and true state of being, beyond birth and death... abiding in this state is buddhahood a.k.a. wisdom(vidyā). That state is beyond the 4 extremes which are (i)existence, (ii) non-existence, (iii) both existence and non-existence, (iv) neither existence nor non-existence.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 19th, 2012 at 9:50 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
You're still coming from a position where the external/internal dichotomy is considered an inherent aspect of experience.

5heaps said:
not an inherent aspect of experience, just an existing aspect of experience.
however since you think neither objects nor experiences of objects "ever existed in the first place", you negate both inherent and general experience.

krodha wrote:
You assume it's an existing aspect of experience, and I don't doubt that it may legitimately seem that way. But is it really an existent aspect? Or could it be that in your presence everything simply seems to appear without claiming to be anything in particular? Imputation delegates all divisions, borders, dichotomies, dualities etc. and experience then conforms to those specifications.

Objects (and experiences of objects) certainly seem to exist and their presence is no doubt compelling, however just as others have suggested in this thread: these objects really don't stand up to thorough investigation. Experience is multi-faceted and can appear in a myriad of ways. Though it may seem to be concretely solidified and endowed with it's own innate laws and principles which govern the way it manifests, this is not the case. Reality is flexible and malleable, able to appear in one manner when influenced a certain way and another when an alternate perception is taken. All fully dependent on the point of view and perception championed. If one is (as it seems you suggest) merely a pawn subject to the rules and regulations of a separately existent reality, established and alien to us as individuals, then how could liberation and enlightenment be possible? Why would the great conquerors claim to have passed beyond the clutches of birth and death, transcending limitation, delusion, affliction and suffering? They didn't accomplish this feat by escaping the trap, but by seeing that there was no trap to begin with. And this realization flowered upon the discovery that the trap and trapped were indeed the very same illusion. The only obstacle to freedom is oneself.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 19th, 2012 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: The permanence of enlightenment
Content:
krodha wrote:
This reminded me of another thread where the differences in Mahāyāna liberation and Dzogchen liberation were briefly discussed, Namdrol wrote:

Namdrol said:
Parinirvana without any remainder.

This is another place where Dzogchen doctrine differs from common Mahāyāna -- the goal in common Mahāyāna is a non-abiding nirvana.

The ultimate result of Dzogchen is an abiding nirvana.

Why? Because compassion is innate in the basis, and whenever sentient beings appear, so do Buddhas.

krodha wrote:
So it seems nirvana is going to differ depending on the vehicle one is implementing. I've also heard that Theravāda considers enlightenment to be the first initial moment a glimpse of nirvana is actualized(one is then an arhat and considered enlightened according to Theravādin standards). Mahāyāna seems to be close to the same although I'm sure realization has a much different flavor, it seems that one may actualize non-abiding nirvana and in some rare cases actualize the full attainment of abiding nirvana. Lastly Mahāmudrā and Dzogchen are the definitive methods implemented to turn the non-abiding nirvana into the flawless and full abiding nirvana(complete and perfect buddhahood), although I've also seen discrepancies and controversy regarding the nature of their respective definitions of nirvana(Dzogchen being a more complete enlightenment since it contains practices which are unique to it such as tögal).

That being said, I could be wrong about this and I welcome any corrections!


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 19th, 2012 at 4:06 AM
Title: Re: What creates the illusion of time?
Content:
Sönam said:
what do you call a table? a conglomerate of atoms? made of what, with what form?

Sönam


krodha wrote:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc3H4UkkZgk


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 19th, 2012 at 4:03 AM
Title: Re: What creates the illusion of time?
Content:


LastLegend said:
Ok. A table is broken and found at the dumpster, and over time it will become rotten, it will no longer be the table is it?

Sönam said:
It has never been a table ... it always have been just a name.

Sönam

LastLegend said:
Yes and the name is table. And apparently it is here because you are here.

krodha wrote:
It is here because you are here. The Buddha's essential exegesis of pratītyasamutpāda is; "this arises, that becomes". Because the "I"(subject) is conceived, immediately that which is not-I(object) arises. And from there the objective field is cut up and fragmented into all sorts of names, concepts and forms... one of them being a "table". However, in this timeless moment each "field" of sensory perception is unbroken and complete and that which you posit to be your "body" appears just the same as that which you label a "table", both arise in vision and are equal in that respect. It is only when conceptualization arises that we cut this field up and fragment it into the self/other dichotomy. If you take a step back and just witness each sensory field in it suchness there is no separation to be found, the experience itself suggests no edges, borders, location, dividing lines or anything of the sort... those designations are merely imputed upon seamless experience via conceptualization. The problem is that we habitually identify with a certain and very specific cluster of sensations within these unbroken sensory fields, and that certain cluster of sensation is labeled a "body" and that body belongs to "me".. the "I". From there, the "I" believes it spans time and is subject to all sorts of happenings both good and bad, but the concept "I" is itself only a presently arising thought or concept. Just another appearance in seamless experience, the thought "I" has nothing whatsoever to do with the "body". The concept and the appearance are not connected in any way. So the body is truly just a visual appearance which arises the same as any other color or shape in the field of vision. The body also has tactile and kinesthetic sensations attributed to it, but these sensations also just arise in experience and do not constitute a "body" (or belong to the thought "I"). Now we don't take the table to be "I", and if the table isn't "I" then the body also certainly isn't "I", because they both arise in exactly the same manner. So "I" can be detached from these sensory perceptions and seen for what it is(an arising thought/concept). However, since time is seen as empty, and it is understood that the "I" who would witness the thought "I" is the thought itself, and the moment that thought arises it self liberates... the duality collapses into a nondual and timeless non-arising perfection.

So the table isn't a table, it IS vision. In 'seeing' one doesn't see objects or appearances, what appears as objects or appearances is 'seeing' itself. The act of observing and what is observed are not two separate things, what is seen, is the act of 'seeing' itself. What appears in the field of vision, is vision itself. And this applies to every sensory perception. So no objects are experienced anywhere or at anytime.

Sönam is right, table is just a name, it's just a two syllable sound which arises which sounds like ta-ble. The sound "ta-ble" has nothing to do with the, (for example;) brownish color rectangular shape we associate it with. And further, there is no bordering line or separation between the shape/colors and vision itself, and since the "you" who would "see" this is merely a thought/concept(which is another non-witnessed expression of experience)... vision no longer needs to be imputed as a 'sensory perception' and objects which are seen are also absent... so experience is only the natural state, seamless, borderless, edgeless, nonlocal, complete, unobscured, oceanic, perfect.

As for the broken decaying table: in the timeless moment it appears as such, as a conventional appearance it has never appeared as anything(or any way) other than the condition it's presently in. There was no time prior to now, and will be no time following now... but then again there is no table to begin with, the table is hair on a tortoise, an abstraction which is a figment of imagination... only the natural state IS.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 18th, 2012 at 4:14 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
5heaps said:
and? because none of those things can be ascertained when seeing ultimate truth, this means what? that those unascertained things dont exist ie. are illusions? or that they are like illusions because their mode of existence was previously misunderstood?

krodha wrote:
If an alleged object or appearance is finally understood to have never existed in the first place due to it's initial "existence" being nothing more than a delusional misapprehension; does said object or appearance therefore transfer to a different mode of existence so that it could be characterized as "previously misunderstood"? I'd argue that the initial delusion(object/appearance) never was... it never existed in the first place... so it can't be previously misunderstood because the initial object or appearance was a figment of one's imagination. In the end, if I had to choose between the titles of 'illusion' or 'like an illusion' to describe the nature of the initial misapprehension, I'd have to say 'illusion' would be most accurate.

5heaps said:
i see, you lean towards the mind-only position which denies external objects

krodha wrote:
I surely do not, and I'm not sure how you derived that conclusion from anything I wrote. You're still coming from a position where the external/internal dichotomy is considered an inherent aspect of experience. From your point of view, yes, this duality appears as if it's being subjected to "denial" but that is only because you genuinely believe that your body is a container and your skin represents a dividing line between two worlds.

5heaps said:
yes, the cake isnt external, yet cake is still not asserted as being an appearance. when i say appearance i generally am referring to main minds. for example in the case of seeing a red flower, the appearance is the red mental aspect of the flower ie. the eye consciousness. likewise the cake that you put in your mouth is not a main mind, nor a mental factor, but physical form. because of this cakes are not illusion-cakes, appearance cakes, but actual cakes.


krodha wrote:
While I wouldn't classify the cake under any of those designations you listed, I'll play devils advocate for a moment... when the only access one has (or will ever have) to a cake is via sensory perception, why and how would the cake you put in your mouth be a physical form? I'm not sure how you're delineating any sort of physicality or actuality. You're saying the taste of the cake is in the cake itself? The texture of the cake is in the cake itself? The cake possesses these properties?


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 18th, 2012 at 4:26 AM
Title: Re: What creates the illusion of time?
Content:
LastLegend said:
If things are impermanent, that means time exists to reinforce it?

krodha wrote:
Impermanence is just a skillful way to have one directly perceive the futility of grasping at appearances, and it aids one in understanding that suffering arises from such activity. "Things" are impermanent, because "things" are abstractions born of conceptualization and they rely on you as an individual to exist. So impermanence is just a way to expedite the realization that no peace can be found in dualistic grasping. As soon as the "I" is conceived, time is born, space is born, beginning and end are born and everything which depends on these faculties subsequently manifests, all are predicated on that one seed. One is then slain by time due to identifying with delusion and it just compounds as habitual tendencies become more engrained. The common sense view then becomes "I exist, I was born and in time I will die", reminds me of a friend's band from sacramento... one of their albums is titled; "Time... The Destroyer", everything is destroyed by time. But does time exist? Do things exist? Do you exist as you believe you do? Were you born and will you die? These are questions the Dharma will answer if applied correctly.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 18th, 2012 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Music time
Content:
krodha wrote:
Bon Iver.... incredible stuff

Bon Iver - Calgary
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KrmxavLIRM

Bon Iver - Holocene
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWcyIpul8OE

Bon Iver - Re: Stacks
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePatJIwB-sI

Bon Iver - Wash.
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMfL7rVAu0U

Bon Iver - Beth/Rest
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF_Mx2xsdbw


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 18th, 2012 at 2:32 AM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
5heaps said:
yes, rnam pa in tibetan, its part of the definition of the mind

krodha wrote:
I don't doubt it is, I'm sure every angle has been covered in the teachings (being that the true nature of reality is approached from multiple and various directions and positions), however that doesn't mean certain designations are exempt from emptiness. There truly are no ultimates in this teaching, something stated in the beginning of the path may not hold true in the end. There are levels to this if one is implementing a gradual path, as one progresses contradictions may arise, but they're only contradictory if one remains attached to a certain view.

Fellow forummer Mariusz just posted this yesterday and it reflects the view of reality I (and others on this thread) am attempting to convey:

Suchness (nature of reality) free of all types of differentiation (all ignorance) appears in its one taste (beyond reference points) when these are all absent:
 
• What appears to the nonconceptual sensory faculty as a duality of perceived and perceiver
• The process of formulation conducted by the rational mind, which is conceptual and first makes the assumption that whatever appears to be a duality (subjekt-object) actually exists that way and then formulates it by assigning a specific term 
• The inner faculties, that of the eye and so on
• Outer objects, form and so on
• The principles of awareness, the eye consciousness, and so on
• Vessel-like worlds’ appearances experienced in common.

- Ju Mipham

5heaps said:
i dont know what you mean by the tactile sensation bypassing this process...why would it do that. no, all sense consciousness use internal appearances, so no bypassing

krodha wrote:
You made this distinction: "because the appearance of cake is an internal object, whereas the thing you eat is physical form" which sounds as if you're implying the appearance(vision?) of the cake is internal, whereas what is eaten(tactile) is physical... your statement came across as creating contrasting distinctions between the properties of certain sensory modalities.

5heaps said:
are internal appearances not internal? if not, are they external?
if neither, do they not exist at all? if you say they do exist, and yet theyre neither internal nor external, then what are they?
furthermore appearances are not negations, theyre positive objects, unless by appearances youre talking about general categories

krodha wrote:
By "internal" I take it you mean "inside the body" which would naturally suggest it's dualistic counterpart of externality (existing outside the body) with the bordering line being the surface of the skin. But this schematic only holds true if one is identifying with "the body" which is merely a concept imputed onto a certain cluster of sensations. In actuality every appearance inhabits the same space, for instance; we normally take thoughts to be internal, and the sound of people talking to be external, but in truth both of these manifestations appear in the same exact manner. They both occupy the same space we only impute a pseudo bordering line and take it to be genuine when in truth there is no such line. If you listen to "external sounds" and then produce a thought, you'll find that they both appear the same way, you only take one to be internal because through habitual reification and conditioning this has become "commonsensical"... however that does not mean it's true, and earnest empirical investigation will reveal it to be a fallacy.

Further, to say they exist would be attaching to an extreme, to say they don't exist would be attaching to the contrasting extreme... both positions are suicide in this teaching. Manifestation is beyond the 4 extremes and the reason for this is to allow our normally compulsive need to intellectualize everything, to relax. The truth is not found by implementing the intellect and one cannot think themselves to liberation(though at the same time, a clear intellectual understanding is very key).

Reality mirrors the imputations placed upon it; if you say an appearance is internal, it is... if you say it's external, it is. So your query as to whether appearances are internal or external that question cannot be answered, because again, skillful emptiness doesn't even let such a paradigm become established. Internal and external are empty from the very beginning and are equivalent to hair on a tortoise as I said before. This path to liberation is a process of deconstruction in a sense, structures of thought, presuppositions and assumptions are keenly dismantled so that their innate emptiness can become fully evident beyond the pale of the intellect. The process increases exponentially as one gets closer to the truth of suchness Mipham elucidated above.

If one remains attached to certain presuppositions about reality then they are doomed to remain stagnant in this teaching. Luckily emptiness is a perfect antidote for this predicament. By seeing how dichotomies dependently originate they can be seen for what they are (mere conventionalities).

When you say appearances are positive objects, what appearances are you speaking of?


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 17th, 2012 at 3:47 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
5heaps said:
yes you can...there is a cake outside of the appearances of cake. why? because the appearance of cake is an internal object, whereas the thing you eat is physical form

when analyzing the emptiness of the cake you are analyzing physical form, not an internal appearance. the emptiness of the internal appearance is the emptiness of your mind, not of the cake.

DarwidHalim said:
This is exactly the location of the self that you have hold and it is not a surprise you said cake is like an illusion, instead of illusion.

As I mentioned before, someone who can just accept reality is like an illusion, but not illusion, they have the sense of self deep inside their understanding.

There is no cake outside the appearances of cake.

In emptiness there is no internal and external.

5heaps said:
ah, come now, emptiness has nothing to do with denying external objects by just calling them internal ones ie. just appearances.
any idealist can do that.

krodha wrote:
5heaps let me get this right, you're attributing the "appearance of cake" to some type of internal pseudo visual representation of an external form? But at the same time you're granting the tactile and/or kinesthetic sensation to be a genuine contact with an external physical form? So the fundamental schematic and paradigm you're functioning under is; there is an actual "physical" form existing externally which is apprehended by the senses (translated by a mind which is internal and separate from external reality) and represented as an internal appearance, but that tactile sensation bypasses this process and is in fact a true account of this alleged physical external world? This view is atrocious.

DarwidHalim is correct, there is no cake outside the appearances of cake (and I'd add that there is no cake within the appearances imputed as "cake" either), and there certainly is no internal/external dichotomy in emptiness, which means there is no internality or externality in experience at any time.

No one's denying external objects by calling them internal appearances. That would be an affirming negation, external objects/internal appearances have never been established in the first place, so they cannot be "denied". External/internal is hair on a tortoise, it's a ludicrous notion in the face of skillfully applied emptiness. The notion of internal/external is born of ignorance. As for idealism, it also falls flat on it's face right from the start being that the internal/external dichotomy is empty from the very beginning.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 17th, 2012 at 4:05 AM
Title: Re: NON-DUALITY
Content:
mindyourmind said:
I never knew/thought that the non-duality provided any relief from suffering directly.  I've glimpsed non-duality and because of my dichotomies I sometimes find the non-duality painful like anything else.

krodha wrote:
Painful in what way?

mindyourmind said:
Why does anyone want to reach any state?  I don't know that reaching any state is the point.  It's the not reaching that seems to matter most and create the gap that allows for real insight to emerge...

krodha wrote:
It's usually not presented as a state to acquire, but as one's true nature...  and describing it as one's "true nature" has the flavor of an underlying actuality which is veiled by obscurations. But I'm sure it is perceived as a truth to be desired because the notion naturally resonates with people. Being told that one is essentially dreaming and that this experience (we take to be everyday life) is equivalent to a dream, should certainly come across as a strong wake up call.

However a nondual experience isn't necessarily liberation, one can have all types of absorption experiences but still be wrought with afflicted view. I remember in one of Tulku Urgyen's books he told a story of a practitioner who had come to his teacher after a long retreat to "debrief". He proceeded to inform his teacher that he had all sorts of auspicious experiences, extended states of absorption where there was no separation between he and his surroundings, feelings of omniscience where he felt the entire universe within him, and so on and so forth. And the teacher essentially looked at the student and said "I'm sorry... keep practicing".

I do agree with you that creating that gap is important... because in merely aspiring to achieve a state of nonduality(or liberation itself) the very aspiration can become a roadblock if one doesn't know any better. The rapid nature of dzogchen is derived from it being a non-causal vehicle. But that being said, if reaching does take place then reaching is appropriate, if "creating the gap" takes place then that is also appropriate. Genuine realizations regarding what works and what doesn't work are most important. One can be told something won't work, but if that advice is only taken at face value, that initial acceptance just becomes another form of reaching more often than not. Without the process of a legitimate personal investigation which leads to the essential discovery of said futility for oneself, the mere acceptance of an alleged futility doesn't mean much. The journey is personal, and all you can do is hope that each individual is ruthless and earnest on their respective paths.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 16th, 2012 at 3:18 PM
Title: Re: What is the concept of "reality" in Buddhism?
Content:
retrofuturist said:
Greetings Trevor,

trevor said:
So what are we missing here? What more do we need to make the appearance of cake into the real cake? What makes it real?

retrofuturist said:
I tend to understand this in accordance with the following Pali Sutta...

SN 35.23 said:
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

retrofuturist said:
Bringing that to your example of cake, there is the sight of cake, smell of cake, taste of cake etc. To describe a "cake" independently of the actual experience of cake is to go "beyond range".

Here's one I prepared earlier: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11448&start=80#p173631 " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Maitri,
Retro.

krodha wrote:
Good insight! I'd add, that in the act of evaluating cake(or any alleged object), to even posit that there is "anything" which resides "beyond range" or "out there" would be a defeating view. Truly to speak of apprehending the cake(or any appearance) via the senses is a minor deviation in and of itself. Running with the approach that the experience of cake consists merely of it's sensual properties(the sight of cake, taste of cake etc..) still gives subtle credence to the (albeit commonsensical) notion of a cake which is seen, smelled, tasted etc. As if there are substantiated sense modalities which are perceiving qualities beyond themselves. I'd take it further and suggest that there is indeed nothing independent of the experience and that the experience alone is. So not the "sight OF cake" but that the cake is precisely the sight, taste, smell etc.. And that being the case, one can nullify the senses(and the cake) which end up being misnomers. What's left is akin to experience experiencing itself(and even that is saying too much). Insubstantiated and illusory through and through.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 14th, 2012 at 7:19 AM
Title: Re: Question about "what moves on" in rebirth
Content:
5heaps said:
nor is it true that when you eat a french fry you end up eating 100s of them the longer you chew that one fry.

asunthatneversets said:
Again time, subject and object are assumed to be existent beyond the pale of conventionality.

5heaps said:
doesnt matter. in no instance is it correct to say that each moment is a rebirth

krodha wrote:
I respect your opinion, what may I ask is your view on rebirth?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 14th, 2012 at 12:54 AM
Title: Re: Question about "what moves on" in rebirth
Content:
5heaps said:
nope, otherwise you would be an entirely different person each moment, and thats not true.

krodha wrote:
Your position is based on the mutually interdependent presuppositions that time indeed exists and that an entity which spans time also exists. I'm not denying the conventional reality of such designations but to refute the manner of their fundamental and illusory manifestation (as the mere conventions they are) in the name of attempting to establish some type of inherency seems misguided.

Who or what would be an entirely different person each moment? My implementation of the phrase "moment to moment" in and of itself already says too much being that it subtly suggests a consecutive chain of moments(i.e. Time).

5heaps said:
nor is it true that when you eat a french fry you end up eating 100s of them the longer you chew that one fry.

krodha wrote:
Again time, subject and object are assumed to be existent beyond the pale of conventionality.

5heaps said:
the tough part of this basic version of dependent arising is understanding is that while things are momentary, nevertheless objects function over time.

krodha wrote:
They certainly appear to.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 14th, 2012 at 12:10 AM
Title: Re: Question about "what moves on" in rebirth
Content:
krodha wrote:
Seems to make sense to regard rebirth as occurring moment to moment, anytime the "I" arises and subsequent imputation (predicated on said "I") proliferates. Due to this initial misapprehension a resultant chain of imputed conceptualization gives rise to varying notions of duality. These apparent dualities in turn manifest all conceivable distinctions and designations (time, space, existence, nonexistence, self, other and any other form of dichotomous misconception). Apart from the utter delusion these (apparently obscuring) factors create, every imaginable aspect of this inconceivable reality (which is beyond the 4 extremes) is unborn.

"The actual essence, pristine rigpa, 
cannot be improved upon, so virtue is profitless,
and it cannot be impaired, so vice is harmless;
in it's absence of karma there is no ripening of pleasure or pain;
in it's absence of judgement, no preference for samsara or nirvana;
in it's absence of articulation, it has no dimension;
in it's absence of past and future, rebirth is an empty notion;
who is there to transmigrate? And how to wander?
What is karma and how can it mature?
Contemplate the reality that is like the clear sky!

Constantly deconstructing, investigating keenly, 
not even the slightest substance can be found;
and in the undivided moment of nondual perception
we abide in the natural state of perfection."

- Longchenpa


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 6:17 AM
Title: Re: Where is karma located?
Content:
AstralProjectee said:
That's lame asunthatneversets.

krodha wrote:
Lame? ....THAT.... IS.... SPARTA! AND THE BUDDHA, DHARMA AND SANGHA!

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 13th, 2012 at 4:41 AM
Title: Re: Where is karma located?
Content:



Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 12th, 2012 at 9:53 AM
Title: Re: Is there such a thing as almost pure evil?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Except for that... That's pure evil.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, April 12th, 2012 at 6:22 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism and Death
Content:
Challenge23 said:
Hello,

Hopefully this should be the last of these newbie questions I'm posting.  I am pretty sure this is the most serious one.

To Long; Didn't Read version:  I think I have a phobia of dying and am not sure what the proof we as Buddhists have of reincarnation.  Help?

From my understanding in order for Buddhism to make sense then we have to have karma and reincarnation.  If you only live once then karma isn't nearly fast enough to balance the scales.  If you don't have to worry about coming back to repeat the cycle then once you get to the point in your practice where you aren't a bad person to be around then you don't really need to push it anymore.
I would even go so far as to say that if you aren't being some sort of ludicrous hedonist then you aren't living your life right.  Why serve sentient beings as in 70 years their suffering will absolutely end?

krodha wrote:
Some of these things such as karma and rebirth may be good pointers in the process of removing the ignorance which binds us to suffering. But there are no "ultimates" in buddhism when it comes to the ins-and-outs of the teaching. What is stated at the beginning may not necessarily be what is true at the end. An analogy of peeling away the layers of an onion is often used... what is present at the start is soon discarded* and you continue layer by layer until you reach the core (*or not discarded per se, but seen as only having conventional purpose and ultimately lacking inherent existence). Use these pointers as a map and a good structure for your personal conduct and view, but don't attach to them too tightly. Do not treat buddhism as a belief system, do not believe anything except for that liberation is real and the Dharma can take you there.

Challenge23 said:
Why work towards the end of suffering as it will come when you stop breathing no matter what you do?

krodha wrote:
Do you absolutely know that the end of suffering will come upon the cessation of breathing? Or is there a possibility that you tell yourself that now as a sort of light at the end of this tunnel you feel you're in? Perhaps a statement like this is a reflection of the way you feel, in that, in the midst of this predicament you find yourself in... the struggle to escape the tunnel has become tiring and pointless. Consider for a moment; the possibility that you were never in the tunnel to begin with, that truth is what this teaching reveals. Suffering is born of a grave misunderstanding regarding the nature of reality. The whole schematic of you as an individuated entity, living, suffering, dying someday, is an unneeded blemish upon the truth of what is happening right now. Why not be free? Your argument is akin to being in a desert and dying of thirst when all of a sudden someone walks up to you and says "hey, you're sitting on a well full of fresh water, it's right there under you, you just have to dig a little" to which you reply "what is the point of quenching my thirst and stopping my suffering if it will cease upon death anyways".

Challenge23 said:
I know there is something I'm not seeing here and that there is some way of proving these things that is as least as strong as the science behind neurology that basically shows that the brain is like an engine and consciousness is like heat that is generated when the brain is running.  According to this theory when you turn off the brain consciousness just dissipates like heat dissipating off of an engine.

krodha wrote:
This would be a wrong view (in my opinion), and a debilitating one in buddhism due to taking the brain to be some type of ultimate physical "thing" which generates consciousness. Some neuroscience may state this but it doesn't mean that is the way it is, those neuroscientists certainly haven't figured out how the brain supposedly produces consciousness. This has been the issue with a lot of science... for centuries science has approached it's endeavors with the fundamental assumption that reality is indeed a form of ultimate physical suchness, constructed and composed of matter, constituent particles, elements etc... it treats the world like an artifact and this view in turn makes you yourself an anomaly and fluke living on a rock floating through infinite space. A fluke who was born, subject to decay in time and ultimately succumbs to death. This perception "physicalizes" experience and makes you a mere dissipating consciousness which resides in this structure composed of flesh, bone and blood. This type of perception and belief structure can undoubtably ONLY result in one feeling fragile and anxious. Luckily, although this (physicalist) view has been adopted, believed and taught to the masses, it lacks inherent reality. You have been indoctrinated with this view, but it is unreal.

Things are only that way if you believe them to be. In truth they are quite the opposite, and buddhism is one way (one of the best in my opinion) to experientially discover the unreality of the deluded view I described above. You are not bound by any such limitations.

Challenge23 said:
As I have been practicing I have realized that this is what is slowing my practice. I am scared that I am wasting my life going towards a goal that I will get to anyway that will at the same time be truly horrifying to me(the idea of all that I think of as me just whiffing off like blowing out a candle is really scary). Help?

krodha wrote:
So you're saying that in pursuing the unreality of yourself via buddhism you're just chasing a fact that will be actualized upon physical death anyways? What buddhism reveals is that this "you" you take yourself to be is a misconception, and that you are indeed vastly more than just this. You take yourself to be a limited individual with a physical body who lives in time and is going to die, but upon the realization of your true nature you discover that you certainly aren't that... and that what you truly are is inconceivable, beyond nothing, beyond everything, unborn, undying, timeless and perfect. It is a liberation, not something to fear. You feel fear and anxiety about your existence at this time because you're identifying with an abstraction, something that isn't truly there(the way you believe it to be). In the fruition of buddhism one doesn't activate a death of self (it's not as you say, "all that I think of as me just whiffing off like blowing out a candle"), instead what happens is a deep and intuitive discovery(beyond belief) that you were never born to begin with, and that which is unborn cannot die. This is why nirvana(liberation) it is called 'escaping the cycle of birth and death', birth and death are understood to be happenings which are predicated on a false "self", and therefore suffering itself is based on an illusion. There is nothing here which was born, and there is nothing here which will die, and I know you cannot believe that (and I would not ask you to) but if applied correctly this teaching will reveal this truth.

Your skepticism and questioning are good things, question everything.

(Apologies for all the edits, i initially typed this out too quick.)


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 11th, 2012 at 2:31 PM
Title: Re: Is there such a thing as almost pure evil?
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
No, there is no such thing as pure evil.  There is no such thing as evil.  There is ignorance, hatred, desire, pride and jealousy and acting out these mental states has outcomes.

krodha wrote:
I agree, no evil... Just ignorance.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 11th, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
alpha said:
what does it mean when there is a self aware space without boundary of and cannot be thought of being inside or outside and thoughts seem to arise from the middle  of it ?

and the thoughts  dont have much strength and seem to be somewhat similar to the space they arose from?

krodha wrote:
It's meaning would depend on whether one is asking from experience or from the perspective of a general inquiry, a teacher with skillful means may answer in different ways depending on the circumstances surrounding the question... And that's just because how one relates to such an experience can either be binding or liberating.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 9th, 2012 at 5:12 PM
Title: Re: nihilism
Content:
omnifriend said:
if we let go of craving and aversion all the time, isnt that nihilism? i dont understand.  is it to be understood intellectually? please no talks on how pleasure is the path right now, just looking for bare bones basic buddhism 101.

krodha wrote:
Don't abandon craving/aversion, for that is merely an aversion to craving/aversion due to craving what you believe their absence may reveal. Instead seek to intuitively understand that where craving and aversion arise... you arise, and where craving and aversion are not... you are not.

Likewise nihilism is attachment, don't abandon attachment(or it's opposite: aversion), for that would be an aversion to attachment/aversion due to attaching to what you believe their absence may reveal. Instead seek to intuitively understand that where attachment arises... you arise, and where attachment is not... you are not.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 8th, 2012 at 2:49 PM
Title: Yamantaka Mantra Used In TV Series 'Breaking Bad' Episode
Content:
krodha wrote:
I was catching up on this show the other day and was surprised to hear Yamantaka's mantra used during a scene(Season 3 Episode 13 "Full Measure"). It's a violent scene where Mike(resident dirty work handyman) goes on a bit of a killing spree. Weird they'd choose the mantra for a sound bite, not sure if it has any significance other than sounding ominous to the untrained ear. The mantra can be heard at various points through the scene (at the start and then again around 3:10 in the clips linked below). Sounds like Gyuto monks. Couldn't find a code that would embed the video but here's some links to the scene.

http://www.amctv.com/breaking-bad/videos/breaking-bad-talked-about-scenes-mikes-killing-spree

http://www.mefeedia.com/movie/49857878


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 7:40 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism and nature
Content:
tk_leaf said:
Hello everyone,

I am curious about the value of nature and proper relation to in in the context of Buddhism. II know that in East Asia Buddhism historically coexisted with Taoism, Shinto etc., in which untainted nature, nature spirits/gods and such are very important. There are also some ideas that everything, even trees grass and rocks have Buddha-nature. But so far I haven't been able to find any similar ideas in Tibetan Buddhism. From the books I have, I got an impression that nature basically does not matter - you can spend your life meditating in some stone room without any contact with nature, and you won't miss anything important. And spirits of forests/mountains/etc are just hungry ghosts. Is my impression correct, or did I miss something?

I am also curious about relation between Buddhism and ecology/green ideas (well, apart from the idea that we should feel compassion for animals and try to reduce their suffering).

Thanks.

krodha wrote:
Nature matters a lot I would say, the elements are a big aspect of Tibetan Buddhism. They correlate with the prominent colors used in imagery such as prayer flags etc... Though ultimately nature isn't taken to be a truly substantiated and independent extant but a play of ones own energy. There ends up being no border or separation between man and nature. It all manifests as a continuum of sorts. Everything we normally consider to be phenomenal aspects of reality are said to be empty.

The earth outside, the stones, mountains, rocks, plants, trees and forests do not truly exist.
The body inside does not truly exist.
This empty and luminous mind-nature also does not truly exist.
Although it does not truly exist, it cognizes everything.

- Vajrayogini


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 5:23 PM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
Jax said:
Sun, I never rejected anything, you missed the whole point. As rigpa, notions as abomination along with it's emotional flavor, never arise as Rigpa takes no position regarding better or worse. Sem is not present in rigpa , hence such concepts as abomination would only arise from the mind being in a confused state.

krodha wrote:
My point was that when it comes to interacting with each other and/or expressing ourselves, obviously using language to communicate, dualities are completely unavoidable... 100% part and parcel. In discussing anything dualities are implicit, even if an antonym of abomination (such as beautiful) was chosen it'd still be a naturally dualistic statement. In the actuality of rigpa these positions may not be present, but in speaking about rigpa (conventionally) they naturally come through... but honestly that's neither here nor there, I don't think anyone claimed to be abiding in the natural state (and even if they were it's still besides the point).

In my opinion, it makes no sense to fire on someone for making a statement reflecting how they (and others) feel because it contradicts the actuality of the natural state. And for the record I didn't miss the point, I understood what you were trying to say. It's just throwing rocks in a glass house. I disagree that such concepts (as abomination) would only arise from the mind being in a confused state, they arise from the implementation of language for communicating, and there's nothing wrong with that, it doesn't reflect the level of ones realization or anything of the sort. In stories Guru Rinpoche used to vaporize his enemies... Drukpa Kunley used to go around enjoying alcohol and women... so words definitely don't contradict the natural state. Again, I have no contention towards you... but you spend an awful lot of time negating the "confused state" (because everything is the dharmakāya) to state that the implementation of a concept like "abomination" would only arise from an afflicted mind.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 1:35 PM
Title: Re: Seek To Be Lamps Unto Yourselves
Content:
Jax said:
You also mentioned"abomination" earlier... That sounds like your mind is still plagued by the demon of believing in "good and bad", "better and worse". The non-dual vocabulary of rigpa does not include such words as "abomination". The other vocabulary available would be that used by sem. What happened to "nyamnyid" as same taste wherein all appearances are equal in value?

krodha wrote:
Sounds like YOUR mind is still plagued with the demon of believing in "good and bad", "better and worse" yourself, being that you're rejecting the use of a conventional expression of language like "abomination". What did happen to "nyamnyid" Jax? Falling victim to your own projection! You can't be serious!

As soon as linear language and concepts come into play acceptance/rejection, good/bad, better/worse are automatically present.

And the "non-dual vocabulary" of rigpa vs. "the other vocabulary" of sems? Talk about duality! Not to mention the "non-dual vocabulary" of rigpa does not include such words as "abomination"? More acceptance and rejection. Funny that it would also be acceptance and rejection to reject "the non-dual vocab" of rigpa rejecting "abomination". There's no escaping duality in language. It's naturally fragmented.

Luckily for us duality is an illusion. And that being the case you should know better, teacher.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, April 7th, 2012 at 5:28 AM
Title: Re: The Essential Transmission by Longchenpa
Content:
Jax said:
In my experience reading texts such as this one can trigger a sudden dissolution of subtle dualistic grasping revealing the ever present, non-dual Clear Light Knowingness. Do others experience the same?

krodha wrote:
I still can't tell if verbiage you use such as "ever-present, non-dual clear light knowingness" is describing the all-ground or the natural state. The vague nature of a phrase like that in the context of this teaching can go either way. Especially to someone who's inexperienced and is genuinely seeking your insight to try and understand dzogchen. The vagueness of that terminology coupled with the way you present the "it's just this there's nothing to do" aspect of the teaching is recipe for disaster. A mere realization of the all-ground's characteristics along with one misinterpreting the non-causal nature of dzogchen as a form of literal complacency could potentially give rise to a false sense of attainment that prevents genuine realization.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 6th, 2012 at 2:48 AM
Title: Re: Question ~ Answer Thread
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
ok,

I've been reading this info about 'What the Buddha
taught'. . at the Chapter 6 section It discusses
'Anatta' doctrine of no soul.

So, why no soul in Buddhist thought? . .

krodha wrote:
Buddhism teaches that what we normally take to be a "self" (our own separate self-ness aka what makes you Wesley) is merely a series of aggregates or "skandhas"... Like pieces that when all pieced together create the illusion of a self and a world. Buddhas discovery was that there was no self and no world.. Both are illusions. And this discovery was an experiential release from the illusion which brought him to an inexpressible truth beyond birth and death, the dharma is his method to lead others to this truth.

About this the Buddha said:

"It is just the dharmas[aggregates, appearances] that combine to form this body. When it arises, it is simply the dharmas arising; when it ceases, it is simply the dharmas ceasing. When these dharmas arise, [the bodhisattva aka enlightened one] does not state, 'I arise'; when these dharmas cease, he does not state, 'I cease'."

And also:

"There is a sphere of being where there is no earth, no water, no fire, nor wind; no experience of infinity of space, of infinity of consciousness, of no-thingness, or even of neither perception nor non-perception; here there is neither this world, nor another world, neither moon nor sun; this sphere of being I call neither a coming, nor a going, nor a staying still, neither a dying nor a reappearance; it has no basis, no evolution, and no support; it is the end of dukkha."


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 6th, 2012 at 2:22 AM
Title: Re: Question ~ Answer Thread
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
I'm sure that some Christians who properly understand the 'Christian Bible' would object to "idol worship" or declare "false gods."

What do we say to that? not sure.

krodha wrote:
Ancient Greeks who worshipped Zeus would probably object to a notion of Jesus and proclaim him a false god.. With belief systems it all comes down to where/when you were raised. So what does that tell you? They're just beliefs... Buddhism isn't based in belief but in empirical investigation and understanding which comes from experience and practice. There are some sub sects of Buddhism which are more of a belief system but the majority isn't. If you approach Buddhism as being a mere belief system like christianity then (in my opinion) you won't be getting the full experience. It's more of a practical undertaking based on trial/error, cause/effect, reasoning etc..

And again the tendency for Christians (or any other religion) to declare other religions/philosophies 'idol worship' or 'false gods' is due to the fact that they're identifying with a belief. And in order for that belief to be legitimate one has to negate everything else, it's done out of insecurity. Buddhism (in the most compassionate way possible) calls this ignorance and dualistic attachment and instead seeks to understand how the mind falls prey to such behavior and teaches how to prevent it.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, April 6th, 2012 at 1:10 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
Fa Dao said:
BTW, what does rga thal gyur mean in English? and who was it written by etc?

krodha wrote:
Reverberation Of Sound/Penetration Of Sound

Listed here along with the others:

http://yoniversum.nl/daktexts/tantras17.html

I started a thread awhile back trying to see which ones had been translated and where to find them, but unfortunately not many are available at the moment... Hopefully that changes!


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, April 4th, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Free Will
Content:
Jax said:
...Our Natural State is an ever present living, vivid awareness or perceivingness that is ALWAYS the place from which we are viewing.

krodha wrote:
I'm not contesting this to be contentious or anything, but if the natural state was merely this vivid awareness or perceivingness then what would the purpose of these teachings be? And to say that the natural state is this "place from which we are viewing" actually localizes the natural state to 'here'... and is also saying that vision (as a mode of sensory perception) originates from a certain location(which granted is common sensical to most people, but is not applicable in the context of the natural state).

Jax said:
The Dharmakaya is what's noticing in duality or non-duality. When colors are seen, that which notices the sensory experience is this primordial "noticing" or Rigpa. When the noticing recognizes itself that is the yeshe of Rigpa, rang jyung yeshe. There is no need to alter or adjust experience or mental activity in any way.

krodha wrote:
Positing a 'that' which notices sensory phenomena and apprehends appearances such as color is the general feeling that most people experience everyday, that can't be the natural state either, it suggests the observer-observing-observed trifecta which is the cornerstone of dualistic perception and it's processes. Also, "that which is noticing" sounds too much like a substantiated awareness with the way you word your insight regarding this faculty. And if there's "no need to alter or adjust experience or mental activity in any way"... then why isn't liberation manifesting for the majority of those who in fact do go about their lives without altering or adjusting their experience or mental activity in any way? Following your logic there should be no reason for the Dharma at all... for the Dharma would be akin to teaching a fish how to swim.

Jax said:
Simply the noticing of your current condition as-is, is this unchanging primordial Knowingness of the Dharmakaya. It's hysterical when you realize the quality of your simple noticing awareness that is present under all circumstances is your primordial Dharmakaya Awareness, recognizing this obviousness is Rigpa. The "problem" is that it's too simple to believe that our always present clarity of observingness is the Dharmakaya! It's what is observing or experiencing, yet it is unmodified by all experience, like reflections having no impingement upon the glass of the mirror in which they are arising. From either this being "pointed out" or "introduced" a cognitive shift takes place suddenly and unmistakenly... Like a flash of lightening it's completely Known. And what's known is that your already present "naked noticing" has always been all that you are. Timelessly present in samsara or nirvana, whether asleep or awake. Nothing improves it or obscures it. If there seems to be an obstacle, that very "noticing"  of your conceived "obstacle" is also It!  Let me know if this makes any sense at all...

krodha wrote:
I'm not trying to nitpick at you, I'm really not, any criticism I'm giving is without the least bit of contention, I have nothing against you at all and I'm glad you partake in adding insight to this forum. My refutation is only in the theme of seeing that correct view is propagated so that as many individuals who are interested in this teaching can benefit from it and are blessed with the ability to access their perfection. The issue is that you either understand this teaching and completely choose the wrong way to describe it, or you don't understand it and your misunderstanding comes through in your insight.

Jigme Lingpa sets up the main part of his The Words Of The Omniscient One not with his own instructions, but with those of an imagined teacher of the simultaneous method, in order to subject the statements of this teacher to criticism. He begins with this advice from the imagined teacher:

Those meditators who are fatigued by the penance of solitude and the burden of things to be counted and the teachers who support them are a long way from the definitive secret, the truth of the Great Perfection. If they can come to the place of the ultimate truth of meditation, just by recognizing stillness and just by recognizing movement, there is no need for any other kind of contemplation.

To which Jigme Lingpa(as himself) replies with:

"Although you may achieve an initial acquaintance with the realization of the great ascension to ever-purity by throwing everything out at once as stated above, you will not really have come close to it."

Later in the same text Jigme Lingpa quotes a passage from Longchenpa's Lungti Terdzö in which much the same criticism is made:

The sage oriented toward realization who explains to every flawed person with little merit he meets, "The genuine realization that whatever arises is the nature of the dharmakāya is itself self-arisen wisdom," and, "Absorption is accordingly nescience and manas," teaches what is tantamount to a fabrication that seduces beings. Because of this, one sees [disciples] who are cut off from the profound Dharma, which will not be found elsewhere. Such a teacher is a thief of this vehicle. There are many appearing nowadays.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
heart said:
Buddha never said there was an ego in the first place.

krodha wrote:
Right, thats what the whole point of my post was.

heart said:
Anatta doesn't affirm anything. Your thoughts constantly affirm an non-existing ego. The Buddha just pointed-out the obvious.

/Magnus

krodha wrote:
I'm not affirming anything, the ego is an illusion. And it can't be as obvious as you're making it seem otherwise there would be no point to the Buddha's teaching.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012 at 3:47 PM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Jax said:
Or perhaps Sun, instead of:

"The Great Perfection, in a sense, abides prior to imputation because it takes into account that use of the intellect is actually populating experience with dualisms(and time itself) which are inherently absent in it's true form appearing as one's true nature(vidyā)."

Perhaps the Great Perfection IS the imputations and the populating by the intellect with dualisms... As opposed from being separate from or prior to?

krodha wrote:
In the context of breaking (or avoiding) the habitual tendencies which create and sustain avidyā the initial step is abiding in that unchanging nature which transcends arisings. That space is neither here nor there, close or far, up or down, left or right, self or other. The Great Perfection IS the imputations and the populating by the intellect with dualisms... only in the context of their suchness, and only in the context of that initial unchanging nature being ascertained not as a substratum located 'here' subject(separate/prior) to the series of arisings, but as the arisings themselves, appearing to themselves, non-arisen and non-established. There is only THAT and THAT is beyond the 4 extremes. So truly to say that the imputations/dualities ARE the Great Perfection can't be said, because the dualities are born of imputation and the imputation is born of ignorance, the entire unfolding and habitual reification of this ignorance is avidyā itself. Even though once true realization takes place it is intuitively known that avidyā was unreal from beginningless time, to posit that avidyā lacks reality from the perspective of avidyā itself, only sustains the illusion. There are subtle facets and levels within the illusion, in attempting to jump straight to declaring all is the Great Perfection the underlying and debilitating delusion persists.

I posted this in a response from another thread and it's relevant to what I'm attempting to say here:

...Telling someone they are already perfect can again be misinterpreted as advocating complete non-action. Granted the action is ultimately illusory, but it's only illusory from the vantage point of the natural state. Non-action is also the route, but done skillfully. The natural state is not causally attained in any way or by anyone, yet the path must be walked, otherwise one remains in delusion which causes suffering, no matter how illusory it is, it appears real.

It has to be presented in steps in most cases (even if they end up being illusory), except on rare occasion when one becomes realized simply upon hearing it the first time. I agree that the natural state (though beyond the 4 extremes) is all-that-is in a sense, but only upon the actualization of final fruition. Until that has been established those attributes do not apply. It's much like anattā, prior to that experience (necessary and actual experience) the idea of no-self was merely a philosophical notion. It actually could be intellectually understood to the point where I had in fact convinced myself that I knew there was no self... and thought I "understood" or "got it" for the longest time. Until that actual experience dawned and annihilated all of that, an actual experience which removed all doubt, and after that (even though the emptiness of self was fully apparent) I felt foolish for having thought I initially understood from whatever mental/philosophical gymnastics I had employed. Avidyā is like a plague, it's a disease which causes suffering and skews the true nature of reality. The Great Perfection is not the disease and the necessary steps to curing the malady need to be taken in cases where they're appropriate. So I can see what you're trying to point at but it's too extreme a position to take in my opinion, the process is an illusion but nevertheless a process takes place... hence the beautiful quote which started this thread.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Title: Re: What creates the illusion of time?
Content:
wisdomfire said:
I have been pondering on this for a long time.  Time is supposed to be an illusion, so is space.  Can someone explain what is the term 'timelessness' like in actual experience?  And how is time created as an illusion?  Thank you.

krodha wrote:
Time is believed to be composed of the past, present and future. Of these three, the past is past only in reference to the present and the present is present only in relation to the past, future is future only in reference to the present. So all three being interdependent, even for their very existence, it has to be admitted by sheer force of logic that none of them are real. Therefore, time is not. 

Experience is the only criterion by which the reality of anything can be decided. Of the three categories of time, past and future are not experienced by any, except when they appear in the present. Then it can be considered only as present. Even this present - when minutely examined - reduces itself into a moment which slips into the past before you begin to perceive it, just like a geometrical point. It is nobody's experience. It is only a compromise between past and future as a meeting point. Thus the present itself being only imaginary, past and future are equally so. Therefore, time is not.

So your present wakefulness is always in this 'now', everything happens 'right now'... wherever you are or whatever you do, it is always 'right now'. Time, comes into being when thoughts which seem to be recalling a previous happening arise in this present moment and this thought(called memory) is then said to be commenting on 'the past'. However, all that is occurring, is an image arising 'right now' which seems to be representing "another time". Likewise, thoughts which seem to be projecting events which have not yet come to pass arise in this present moment and this thought(called an aspiration, hope or fear) is then said to be about 'the future'. However, all that is occurring, is an image arising 'right now' which seems to be representing "another time". Lastly, this present moment, is only the present moment in relation to the past and future, the past and future only being presently arising thoughts are never experienced as actual 'times' so therefore the present cannot be the present and time is seen as empty.

Every "moment" is the first moment that has ever been, but being that first would imply second and third, it's not the first or the last nor anywhere in between. It's an utterly timeless eternal 'now' (And even now only exists in reference to 'then' and is therefore negated).

Here is the teaching on the four great unchanging (essential points called) "nails."
(First) there is the great nail of the unchanging view:
This immediate present awareness is lucidly clear.
Because it is stable in the three times, it is called "a nail."
(Second) there is the great nail of the unchanging meditation:
This immediate present awareness is lucidly clear.
Because it is stable in the three times, it is called "a nail."
(Third) there is the great nail of the unchanging conduct:
This immediate present awareness is lucidly clear.
Because it is stable in the three times, it is called "a nail."
(Fourth) there is the great nail of the unchanging fruit:
This immediate present awareness is lucidly clear.
Because it is stable in the three times, it is called "a nail."

Then, as for the secret instruction which teaches that the three times(past, present, future) are one:
You should relinquish all notions of the past and abandon all precedents.
You should cut off all plans and expectations with respect to the future.
And in the present, you should not grasp (at thoughts that arise)
but allow (the mind) to remain in a state like the sky....

- Padmasambhava


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012 at 9:13 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Sally Gross said:
Perhaps a distinction needs to be made between ego (self, atta/atman) and consciousness, which is not-self (anatta/anatman) ....... Denial of the existence of ego in ultimate terms (paramattha in Pali, paramartha in Sanskrit) is certainly not annihilationism, any more than using the first-person singular pronoun (the dreaded "I") in conventional terms (sammuti in Pali, sa.mvrti in Sanskrit) is ipso facto eternalism. The Ananda Sutta in the Pali canon is perhaps relevant here. (See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

I hope that this makes sense.

krodha wrote:
This is good to keep in mind, however one still needs to be careful with the implementation of distinctions like this. As it is, this teaching is already irrefutably predicated on one's intention to establish an authentic distinction between the relative condition of ignorance(avidyā) and one's true nature(vidyā). So distinctions are useful and already clearly present(for it's the purpose of the dharma to take one from ignorance to wisdom). Ignorance and wisdom in and of themselves automatically imply separate and distinctive attributes which define their respective natures; I'm sure most of us agree/understand that avidyā(ignorance) implies identification with an illusory self(ātman, atta), whereas the contrasting condition of vidyā(wisdom) implies non-self(anātman, anattā). So distinctions are obviously helpful, the only issue is that in actualizing the true path which takes one from ignorance to wisdom acquiring the skillful means and discrimination to properly traverse the obstacles and habitual tendencies which create ignorance is of utmost importance.

Not merely understanding that there is in fact a distinction between avidyā and vidyā, but coming to ascertain why and how. Dzogchen is unique in this aspect because it goes straight to the "source" in a sense, and while it could involve itself in establishing the myriad distinctions it actually(in the absolute traditional sense) does not. The reason for this is important and is why Dzogchen can claim to be the swiftest path to liberation.

In the act of establishing and introducing the conceptual dichotomy of the ego(ātman, atta) vs. non-ego(anātman, anattā) there is obviously the tendency to deny the ego. Which is naturally because one comes to understand that the ego is illusory and perpetuates avidyā, therefore the dissolution of the ego would naturally bring the manifestation of wisdom. While this is true and appropriate insight to keep in mind, unless one intuitively understands the nature of the ego then this same insight can tragically reify and strengthen the ego.

For the sake of avoiding this predicament it should be understood how the ego manifests(the nature of it's appearance) and why Dzogchen traditionally avoids reifying this distinction. And this doesn't pertain strictly to ego/non-ego but to any distinction.

Egoic mind is not merely thought(ideas, memory, notions, concepts, belief), but thought that is identified with and/or grasped at. Ego is identification with thought on any level and in any form. So the ego IS thought which is being projected (objectified/subjected) and apart from projected thought ego is absent. Amalgamation of thought is the intellect and what needs to be understood is that the very implementation of making a distinction between ego/non-ego is itself a product of the intellect.

So the denial of the ego is a product of ego, likewise the affirmation of the ego is a product of ego. In either instance the ego is reified and can even be further solidified if one doesn't catch this slip. This property can actually even be applied to the necessary notions of egoless mind and/or consciousness/awareness. Being that egoless mind and consciousness/awareness are concepts they are product of the intellect and are objects to/of the very same ego they purport to contrast. However that isn't to deny the implementation of such concepts(or the intellect itself), it's just something to bare in mind and remember. The reason for this is that unless one has the skill and discrimination to not get caught in ones own projections, notions of egoless mind/awareness/consciousness can become objects themselves and therefore the subject(ego) is kept alive in this grasping and true "seeing" is blocked. Another way this becomes an issue is when the clarity aspect of the nature of mind is mistaken as an apprehending consciousness(or awareness) extending out into space from the pseudo reference point of 'here'.... coupled with the illusion of time, this faculty is erroneously misperceived as a substratum and (as ignorance habitually unfolds) becomes the base of all afflictions(all-ground, kun gzhi). So projected thought plays a huge role in one's experience because it truly is the definitive and delegating factor which decides the manner in which manifestation conforms and appears. Manifestation seemingly alters it's appearance in accordance with the notions projected upon it. This is how the five lights become the five elements and so on... reality has a certain degree of plasticity in this way.

But getting back to the point, creating the distinction between the ego and non-ego actually serves to solidify an ego which in truth isn't there. And further the ego then feeds on this duality of itself and it's absence, in addition to also feeding on the dualistic notions of it's own existence(as a subjective entity) contrasted against that which is posited to be other-than-itself(objects). So things go from 0 to out of control very fast.

Dzogchen avoids this predicament by (at first) abiding in one's natural and spontaneous manifestation of wakefulness that stands prior to seeming arisings of phenomena, and it rests there without humoring the intellect, thus avoiding further dualistic imputation. Thoughts are allowed to self-liberate upon appearance avoiding identification and proliferation. As one gains confidence in this "position" other faculties such as timelessness(previously obscured by thought projection) begin to become more apparent. From there, resting on ones potential laurels graciously revealed by the teacher in direct introduction, the true nature of mind (if cultivated properly) can flower in it's fullness.

The Great Perfection, in a sense, abides prior to imputation because it takes into account that use of the intellect is actually populating experience with dualisms(and time itself) which are inherently absent in it's true form appearing as one's true nature(vidyā). While absolutely necessary, the use of the intellect if uncoupled with skillful means, becomes the very snare one is attempting to escape from.

In the end that which was imputed as "thought" by thought itself, is innately known to be the nature of mind appearing to itself as itself (along with all other previously imputed appearances).

"Here the external forms that are perceived are not designated as empty of self. When emptiness is made an intellectual object, the form and emptiness aspects of the object arise in the intellect. However since the perceived forms have no intrinsic characteristics, those forms should not mix with the intellect. Therefore the statement, 'Emptiness is not other than form, nor form other than emptiness,' should be taken as an axiom"

Jigme Lingpa's argument here seems to be that, through analysis, the intellectual method of establishing emptiness generates the concepts of form (gzugs / rūpa) and emptiness, while in fact the form, as it manifests, bears neither the characteristics of form nor of emptiness. The distinction between form and emptiness comes into being only through the application of intellectual analysis to that which manifests.

........Jigme Lingpa paraphrases the well-known lines from the Heart Sutra to argue that the nondistinction between form and emptiness stated there is in harmony with the usual presentation of emptiness in the Great Perfection. The union of form and emptiness is not taken as a goal, but as the already present nature of that which manifests. This is the explanation given for the rejection of a conceptual, dualistic mode of establishing emptiness. A non-dualistic practice of emptiness is also emphasized in YL where Jigme Lingpa writes that in gnosis, "appearances are not cut with the razor of emptiness."
It is suggested that in KGN that the distinction between relative truth and ultimate truth is another false duality. The line is "In the awakened mind there is no relative or ultimate truth." In accordance with this rejection there are very few references to the two truths in any of these Longchen Nyingtig texts. 

In SN, Jigme Lingpa enumerates four mistaken approaches to emptiness, which he calls the "four ways of straying (shor sa bzhi)." These are borrowed from the Mahāmudrā tradition, where they are to be found at least as far back as Dagpo Tashi Namgyal (1512-87), who enumerates them in his Legshe Dawai Özer. They are (i) straying into the condition where emptiness is an object of knowledge, (ii) straying into taking emptiness as the path, (iii) straying into taking emptiness as an antidote, and (iv) straying into taking emptiness as a seal. The first three errors are related to the criticism of approaches to Madhyamaka set out in the previous paragraphs.

- excerpt from "Approaching The Great Perfection" - Sam Van Schaik (in italics)


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
I am not contesting anything, that is your projection.  I am trying to understand the difference between the Madhyamaka view rearding sunyata and the Dzogchen view regarding the Basis....

krodha wrote:
Took this from the "Differences Between Dzogpa Chenpo And Madhyamaka" section in "The Practice Of Dzogchen" by Longchen Rabjam (Translated and annotated by Tulku Thondup)

Madhyamaka, having distinguished the appearances and emptiness separately, emphasizes the concept of emptiness. Dzogpa Chenpo, having distinguished the Intrinsic Awareness, the pure and natural state of mind, from mind, realizes and perfects the Intrinsic Awareness directly and nakedly. Thereby it realizes the truth of the whole universe free from discrimination and extremes. Longchen Rabjam explains:

"Most of the methods of comprehending (analyzing) the freedom from extremes (mTha'-Bral), and so on, of Natural Great Perfection are similar to Prasangika Madhyamaka. However, Madhyamaka regards the emptiness as the important thing. (Dzogpa Chenpo), relying on the primordially pure and naked Intrinsic Awareness which is just non-existent and unceasing, comprehends it (the Intrinsic Awareness) and all the phenomena arisen from it as free from extremes like space."

Jigmed Tenpa'i Nyima summarizes in the following lines:

"In Choying Dzod (Ch'os-dBying mDzod), etc., there is praise for the (view of) Prasangika Madhyamaka philosophy. Thus (Dzogpa Chenpo) follows Prasangika in regard to (defining) the limits of the object-of-negation (dGag-Bya'i mTshams-'Dzin). However, (Prasangika), having distinguished the appearances and emptiness separately, apprehends the emptiness of non-affirming (Med-dGag) negation, calling it the distinction of the appearances and emptiness or the exclusion of emptiness. It is a method of maintaining (meditation and view) by concepts. It also asserts that if one first distinguishes (the view) by concepts and gains experience (of it) through meditation, then it will become as it is said: "with the fruition of bliss, clarity and no-concept mind." In any case, Dzogpa Chenpo tradition uses the intrinsic awareness as the path, or it maintains only the intrinsic awareness. It does not employ concepts since concepts are mind, and it meditates (on intrinsic awareness after) distinguishing the mind and intrinsic awareness separately."

Although in pure Dzogpa Chenpo one doesn't train on admitting the energy into the central channel, the training is more effective and direct than the trainings given in the tantras. Dorje Wangchog Gyepa Tsal explains:

"Those who have attachment to the path of skillful means (Thabs-Lam) think, 'No matter how good the path of Dzogpa Chenpo is, since it doesn't rely on the method of admitting the energy into the central channel, it's (realization) is not higher than an experience of (the meaning taught in) Madhyamaka.' This kind of wrong judgement arises (due to) lack of understanding of the essential points. The (sole) purpose of admitting the energy into the central channel is (as a means) to arouse the primordial wisdom (which is realized directly in Dzogpa Chenpo)."


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, April 2nd, 2012 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Jax said:
Wow! What amazing sharings of profound erudition! However, perhaps being a bit of a contrarian, I might suggest that there is no need for a Dzogchenpa to accurately understand in a precise way any of these philosophical details. The common ground for Dzogchen and Madhyamaka is the experiential wisdom of nirvikalpam samadhi. Through applying the Madhyamaka dialectic a non-analytical "samadhi" results, nirvikalpa samadhi. This is a non-dual state, the realization of "kadag". It's a condition of utter transparency. It's vividness is lhundrup. The "vividness" is an alert Knowingess of it's condition. If you realize kadag, lhundrup is automatically there, no further study or practice is necessary as they are inseparable from the beginning. Lhundrup is not some unique quality that only Dzogchenpas can know.  The "luminosity" is fully mentioned in Hinayana and Mahayana sutra.  We should perhaps discuss methods to come to nirvikalpam samadhi, or concept-free Knowingness. It is only in nirvikalpa samadhi that we may access the fully liberating non-conceptual yeshe or Wisdom. There is no need to know anything about all these conceptual details for realization. Liberation is not an "understanding", but rather is non-dual samadhi or ting'e dzin. Newbies maybe overwhelmed by all of these discussions "about" rigpa, but one is only ever introduced to one's natural state, through samadhi, no matter how it's "triggered". I very much appreciated Xabir's experiential sharing.  Knowing the origins or definitions of the base intellectually brings one no closer to samadhi or ting'e dzin. However, as a personal note, I do enjoy the scholarly discussions greatly, yet I know a precise intellectual understanding regarding Dzogchen has nothing to do with non-conceptual self-knowing or yeshe.  The one doesn't lead to the other...

krodha wrote:
Good to see you back Jax, things seem to be going better this time around, you seem to be choosing your words better which isn't giving off such an advaita-esque feel to your insight. I agree that there isn't an essential need "to know anything about all these conceptual details for realization" as you said, but for some it may be helpful and necessary. It's easy to get lost in wrong view and misunderstanding which can veil and obscure Dzogchen. For instance(as stated earlier in this thread) it is important to know the difference between the natural state and kun gzhi, failure to make this distinction is suicide in this teaching.

I'd also argue that non-conceptual knowingness isn't an essential prerequisite to accessing the natural state, it can be helpful, but one does need to understand that in becoming attached to the actual experience of non-conceptual knowingness (or hope for non-conceptual knowingness) that very non-conceptual knowingness becomes an object in and of itself, and thus dualistic view(mistaken as wisdom) supersedes and obstructs the natural state if one lacks discrimination. Nirvikalpa samādhi is also a temporary state, one reaches this "summit" of nirvikalpa samādhi and then "regresses", it's actually a pseudo attainment(in the face of the natural state) and can be dangerous if one over-identifies with it instead of using it as a tool to access the natural state.

Even the Advaitin Shri Atmananda Krishna Menon downplayed nirvikalpa samadhi:

"Some yogins hold that you can experience the Absolute only by going into the nirvikalpa state. If this is so, it is not the highest; since it limits the Absolute to a state, however broad. 
Therefore, in order to reach the natural state, which is the highest, you have also to transcend this last taint, namely the misunderstanding that you can experience the Absolute only through nirvikalpa samādhi."

And then he even goes as far as to claim that the nirvikalpa state is artificial:

"The pioneers of the traditional (cosmological) jnyāna path understood and interpreted the spontaneous state of deep sleep as the seat of causal ignorance. It was with a view to avoid or remove this ignorance by human effort that the nirvikalpa samādhi was invented. They succeeded in their goal only partially; because when they came out of the samādhi state, the shroud of ignorance engrossed them once again. So a permanent solution had to be sought again."

And mind you this is a teacher of Advaita... so I'd say that in Dzogchen this temporary state of nirvikalpa samādhi is even less appropriate. In Dzogchen the non-conceptual knowingness can tragically become an 'object' just like the nirvikalpa state(as said above), this is why the duality of stillness and movement must be seen as a fallacy, otherwise it can become a block,

Mipham elucidates this predicament;

"When you rest your attention in naturalness without thinking anything whatsoever and maintain constant mindfulness in that state, you may experience a vacant and blank state of mind which is neutral and indifferent. If no vipashyana of decisive knowing is present, this is exactly what the masters call 'ignorance'. It is also called 'undecided' from the point of being unable to express any means of identification, such as 'It is like this!' or 'This is it!' Being unable to say what you are remaining in or thinking of, this state is labelled 'ordinary indifference'. But actually, it is just an ordinary and nonspecific abiding in the state of the all-ground. 

Although nonconceptual wakefulness has to be developed through this method of resting meditation, to lack the wisdom that sees your own nature is not the main part of meditation practice. This is what the 'Aspiration of Samantabhadra' says:

'The vacant state of not thinking anything
Is itself the cause of ignorance and confusion.' ......."

- Mipham Rinpoche


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 1st, 2012 at 7:34 AM
Title: Re: Very Amazing Experience
Content:
YogaDude11 said:
The fewer thoughts is happening as well. When that state happens that i described, there is absolutely nothing. I mean the mind is still.

krodha wrote:
When you rest your attention in naturalness without thinking anything whatsoever and maintain constant mindfulness in that state, you may experience a vacant and blank state of mind which is neutral and indifferent. If no vipashyana of decisive knowing is present, this is exactly what the masters call 'ignorance'. It is also called 'undecided' from the point of being unable to express any means of identification, such as "It is like this!" or "This is it!" Being unable to say what you are remaining in or thinking of, this state is labelled 'ordinary indifference'. But actually, it is just an ordinary and nonspecific abiding in the state of the all-ground. 

Although nonconceptual wakefulness has to be developed through this method of resting meditation, to lack the wisdom that sees your own nature is not the main part of meditation practice. This is what the "Aspiration of Samantabhadra" says:

"The vacant state of not thinking anything
Is itself the cause of ignorance and confusion."

........(continues on from here)....

- Mipham Rinpoche

Mipham's explanation continues from there, into a form of pointing out instructions which wouldn't be appropriate for me to post (I apologize for building you up and not delivering!), but know there is some important insight to be gained from direct introduction that a teacher like Namkhai Norbu can provide... and I hope you do pursue it because you've built a strong foundation for yourself to correctly perceive what he'll be pointing at and it's nature.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 1st, 2012 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhist?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Good videos... worth watching both (and the others in the series) but if you want an expedited explanation of the fundamental difference in views between Christianity/Buddhism he sums them up pretty clearly starting at 7:58 in Pt. 2

ALAN WATTS: Buddhism And Christianity Pt. 1 of 2
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV7FLlRmuf0

ALAN WATTS: Buddhism And Christianity Pt. 2 of 2
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr73khHDqeE


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, April 1st, 2012 at 1:35 AM
Title: Re: What is the difference between a Christian and a Buddhist?
Content:
Wesley1982 said:
I also think there is a misunderstanding about the golden statues which some Christians could call "idols" . .

krodha wrote:
They can be called idols(although i wouldn't call them that) as long as it's clear that any image of Jesus or crucifixion statues etc are idols as well... Any image the mind can relate to is technically an idol. The difference between buddhism and christianity is that most buddhists don't "worship" anything, much less any images of Buddha. Unlike christians who clearly worship an idol but like to pretend they don't, and are so insecure that they actually claim everyone else is idol worshipping so they can get a false sense of legitimacy in their practices. It's bizarre. When Jesus said thou shalt not worship false idols that means any image the mind can conceive, including himself... which leads to a more apophatic form of theology, and would actually be more akin to Buddhism in some ways. But christianity went a different route altogether. Christians nowadays are clearly cataphatic idol worshippers gone wild.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 31st, 2012 at 4:09 AM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
Dronma said:
The Duality is manifesting externally as the separation of the self and the other. 
The Duality is manifesting internally as the separation of the self and own's action. 
When both separations cease, the separation between internal and external disappears.  

PS. I do not agree with the negation of "no one", since any negation encloses the analogous affirmation of "someone". 
Let's go beyond any negation and affirmation...

krodha wrote:
Though "no one" is an affirming negation, to reject this convention based on the inescapable fact that it naturally suggests(and creates) it's opposite counterpart is no different than accepting it. The negation of (and desire to go beyond) acceptance and rejection is itself a subtle rebirth of the acceptance and rejection dichotomy. Rejecting the convention and accepting what is postited to be other-than-conventional(which is itself a convention). The "going beyond" is contained within the seeming duality of acceptance and rejection itself, for the duality is an illusion. There is nothing to accept or reject, and that includes the act of acceptance and/or rejection itself (and also the futile desire to go beyond them).

The moment a subject relates to an object, acceptance and rejection, attachment and aversion, are immediately present. There's no harm in implementing the conventional concept of "no-self" as long as it's understood to be just that. The very self it(concept of no-self) negates arises from (and is sustained by) the very act of accepting/rejecting which is perpetually reborn as long as experience is dominated and swept away by the plague of delusion the initial(no-self) concept attempts to reveal. So you're right to be weary of this notion, however while you're correct in stating that only the "self" would dualistically accept/reject the self/no-self, it must also be taken into account that likewise only the "self" would accept/reject the acceptance/rejection of the self/no-self. It becomes an inescapable downward spiral(hence the endless cycle of samsara, the shoreless ocean of suffering). This is why skillful means and right view are so imperative. The more one struggles to escape, the tighter samsara's noose becomes around ones throat. But at the same time utter non-action is the same death sentence. There's no going beyond acceptance and rejection, it was empty from the start, the unestablished cannot go beyond that which is likewise primordially unestablished. There was never two to begin with.

When the [ultimate] truth is explained as it is, the conventional is not obstructed; Independent of the conventional, no [ultimate] truth can be found. - Nagarjuna


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 30th, 2012 at 11:53 PM
Title: Re: No-self and Rigpa
Content:
krodha wrote:
I enjoy this one; Xabir turned me onto it actually ^^^

The Buddha speaking to Bahiya, after Bahiya had insisted multiple times that he expound his quintessential view:

In the seen, there is only the seen,
In the heard, there is only the heard, 
In the sensed, there is only the sensed,
In the cognized, there is only the cognized.
Thus you should see that
indeed there is no thing here(subject);
This Bahiya, is how you should train yourself.
Since, Bahiya, there is for you
In the seen, only the seen,
In the heard, only the heard, 
In the sensed, only the sensed,
In the cognized, only the cognized,
and you see that there is no thing here,
you will therefore see that
indeed there is no thing there(object),
As you see that there is no thing there,
you will see that you are therefore
located neither in the world of this,
nor in the world of that,
nor in any place betwixt the two.
This alone is the end of suffering.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 10:17 AM
Title: Re: Buddhist Prime, finally!!!
Content:
krodha wrote:
Man that's some skillful means using the swastika... make sure you're very careful! I'm sure you are... worrisome though, I have friends who wouldn't even ask about it before taking action and it's frightening... as good as your intentions are I would hate so see something bad happen to you, be safe!


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 3:38 AM
Title: Re: Why is it when I do visualizations, I get tired?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Edit: (Haha I just posted this and then read your post Dechen! Didn't mean to restate the same insight!)

Sounds like you also may be too relaxed perhaps. It's one of the two.. Over exertion or under exertion. Finding that balance is key. Maybe try noticing the intensity of practice, if you start feeling tired then focus more, and if you feel too tense then let up and relax. Also perhaps visualizing something easier like a ball of light and then different colors, something simple may be less strenuous to start. And then work up to a candle.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 29th, 2012 at 3:22 AM
Title: Re: Very Amazing Experience
Content:
YogaDude11 said:
Have you had any experiences similar to what i have described?

krodha wrote:
The non-arising of thought or "hard to tell if thought is arising" instances are usually just an inevitable product of regular sitting meditation... And then couple that with tuning your energetic movement in yantra yoga and I'm not surprised you're having experiences like this. The only issue with it, is what comes into play with the lack of transmission like Namdrol was saying (transmission for Yantra Yoga/Dzogchen practice). With the transmission you're then going to be operating from the fundamental view of your true nature which will allow all practices to excel to their full potentiality and respective fruitions much more easily. Even though ones true nature ends up being the base, path and fruition itself... So the view governs your activity, and what happens is that instances like being caught under the sway of experiences like non-thought and vibratory manifestations doesn't happen (or may happen but then is quickly noticed and liberated). Because in truth, when it comes to Yantra Yoga these secondary results are not the point, the point is the continual tuning of the energy to achieve balance so one can abide in the view effortlessly and also remain healthy so one can avoid succumbing to illnesses. It's a supplement to Dzogchen practice and is meant to be approached in that context. So maybe something to think about! The transmissions can only be beneficial. And you'll probably find that your practice will be of much greater value.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 28th, 2012 at 1:02 PM
Title: Re: Very Amazing Experience
Content:


deepbluehum said:
Please tell me what happens to channels and physical body when practicing Dzogchen

krodha wrote:
The question is predicated on misnomers.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Breathing through nose vs. Through mouth in Dzogchen
Content:
alpha said:
this is a very important point.not to be disregarded...

the reason for breathing with the mouth slightly opened is that the movement of the winds in the chanells will be restricted and they will not move in the normal way.
When they move in their normal way(by closing the mouth and breathing through the nose)their movement will give rise to discursive  thought and therefore the practitioner very easily falls into duality.

By restricting their movement you create a condition for the discursive thought to be stoped.

krodha wrote:
Thanks for your response / explanation, much appreciated! Funny, even though I feel like I should know better, I failed to see the connection that breathing through the nose would indeed be stimulating energetic movement and therefore stimulating thought... even though I suppose the habitual reification of the stillness/movement dichotomy ultimately serves as a block, surely in the beginning the less potentiality there is for distraction the easier it is to rest in uncontrived naturalness, glad you pointed that out!

---------------------------------

Nangwa said:
It depends on what practice you are implementing.

krodha wrote:
So the difference would be practices which are based on energetic stimulation of winds (which implement breathing through the nose).... as opposed to practices where the winds are being suspended to aid in pacifying discursive thought (which implement breathing through the mouth)?

---------------------------------

heart said:
Unfortunate that Crystal Cave been put on the net. But I guess  it been out of print for a to long time.

krodha wrote:
Understandable, I'm also glad it's available for those interested in reading it, it's listed online for $220!

heart said:
I would really like to inspire you and others  to get the transmission and instructions on that text as well as "Advice of old Vijaya" by Sechen Gyaltsab, root Guru of Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche. They are very special indeed.

krodha wrote:
I'd love that, how would one go about receiving the proper transmissions?

heart said:
Oh, in Dzogchen you always breath trough the mouth.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
Indeed good to know... thanks for your insight, much appreciated!


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 27th, 2012 at 2:11 AM
Title: Breathing through nose vs. Through mouth in Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
I've always practiced breathing gently through the nose.. And was also taught this is appropriate due to the correlation with stimulating the central channel, but I recently came upon this teaching titled "Key Points In Dzogchen Practice" written by "A Carefree Vagrant" the opening lines include this...

"...look with wide open eyes and without support into the sky straight before you, since the eyes are the gates for the manifestation of wisdom. As for the key point of speech, let your breathing flow naturally, not through your nose but very gently through your mouth. There is a reason for each of these points, so do not disregard them or think them unimportant."

Sounds like an important thing to take note of.. Anyone know what the significance of breathing through the mouth is? (as opposed to nasal inhalation?)

Note to moderators: I would have posted this in the meditation section but seemed more appropriate here given that the insight is based on what is correct in the context of dzogchen specifically.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 26th, 2012 at 10:21 AM
Title: Re: A few questions
Content:
ghost01 said:
I am curious, can tonglen be your only meditation practice, or should it be practiced with other methods too? What is common?

krodha wrote:
There was another thread where tonglen was mentioned in the past couple months... I don't recall the name of the thread unfortunately, but maybe do a search. The visualization of taking others negativity by inhaling it in the form of black smoke was the part in question... There was speculation about whether or not this could produce adverse side-effects in practitioners who lacked stable view. Could be merely speculation, maybe someone who is more knowledgeable could elaborate...


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 24th, 2012 at 7:54 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Dronma said:
I'd like to bring this question to the surface of the board again, since it was buried by many posts. 
So, from the replies it seems that "Dzogchenpa" is a qualified, serious practitioner of Dzogchen. Isn't it? 
Then, what is the term for the female Dzogchen practitioner? 
Dzogchenmo or Dzogchenma?

Pero said:
Perhaps there isn't one. The -pa doesn't necessarily indicate the male gender wherever you see it. In this case I think it simply means someone who is in the state of dzogchen.

Dronma said:
I think that -pa indicates the gender. 
I'd like a response from someone who really knows.

krodha wrote:
The natural state is genderless! I remember specifically being taught not to identify with any moniker related to dzogchen. It's not really of that nature, not a religion or philosophy or something that one can say "I am this". I remember there used to be times where I'd ask my mentor a question and he'd look at me and ask "are you dzogchen??!" and I'd reply "no" and his eyes would light up and he'd laugh and say "very good".  But he refers to my son as a dzogchenpa, I think its more a term of endearment one refers to another with, not really a self appointed title to identify with. I also recall rinpoche touching on this in a retreat a long time ago.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 22nd, 2012 at 2:32 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism?
Content:
krodha wrote:
"Buddhism: The Religion Of No Religion" by Alan Watts has a pretty all encompassing overview when it comes to the fundamentals and the different schools and vehicles. He also has some good talks you can find online


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 22nd, 2012 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Bhusuku said:
Dear asunthatneversets & Pero,

many thanks for your replies. And asunthatneversets: Altough I'm generally quite bad when it comes to visualizations, I don't have much problems visualizing a mirrored tibetan A, however, the mirrored HUM gives me some trouble...

krodha wrote:
Just become familiar with it, maybe find a high resolution image online you can print out, or pull up the image so you can look at it on your screen, locate it in a book or even draw it yourself. Trace it with your eyes and get to know the symbol... the more you familiarize yourself with it the easier it'll be to visualize it, just like flash cards in school for example. I'm sure you can visualize your own bedroom pretty easily, but visualizing a friends' room correctly you've only visited once or twice or seen in passing would be fairly difficult, it all comes down to consistency and earnestness. I have a friend who has a wildly intricate symbol associated with a particular terma printed out(and laminated) on 8.5x11" paper in a rainbow gradient which he uses to become familiar with the image. Just work within your circumstances/capacity and what's appropriate for you, just like rinpoche was saying yesterday' there's no limitations to practice so whatever is going to help you discover your natural state and abide in it is 100% appropriate.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 22nd, 2012 at 3:59 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Pero said:
Mirrored. That is, if someone were to look at you he could read the A.

krodha wrote:
That's right i forgot to account for that, its mirrored if it's visualized being located in your body (head, throat, heart etc..) Or if its being emanated out into space or to a yidam/being. But if it's being visualized in front of you in space it's not mirrored. But like I was saying the english "A" is a good failsafe... Alot of people like using the Tibetan A because it feels more authentic and that's good if it makes one feel a stronger connection to the process but the english A can be used too, or any other symbol familiar to the practitioner that represents A. Starting with the english A is good sometimes because for those with limited visualization ability trying to do a practice while struggling to properly visualize a symbol which may seem awkward or difficult to produce can be an unneeded distraction to the practice. Especially if ones trying to flip it around.. the english A is the same both ways. Even beginning with a colored thigle with no symbol can be good for beginners, and then as the visualizations increase in strength you can add layers to make it rainbow and/or add symbols. Your visualizing is like working out a muscle, it will gain strength, clarity and solidity with time if you're practicing regularly. There's stories of great masters manifesting appearances into what's considered by most to be the "physical world" because having increased that energetic visualization capacity to such a strong level, there's no longer a bordering line between the visualization and vision itself.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 22nd, 2012 at 1:49 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
Bhusuku said:
Hello everybody!

I'm a new member of the Dzogchen Community. I participated in the last WWT and after receiving the necessary practice books/cds I started practicing thundus. However, recently a question regarding the visualizations popped up during my practice. If I visualize the white A for example, do I have to visualize it in a "normal" way, i.e. the way it is written, or do I have to visualize it in a mirrored way? The same question applies to the mantras - for instance, the Thun-book says that one has to visualize one of the mantras rotating clockwise. But does that mean rotating clockwise from my own perspective, or rotating clockwise from the perspective of, lets say an observer standing in front of me?

I hope someone here could help me with this problem, because I really don't want to do the practice in a wrong way. But if this question is inappropriate to ask on a public forum, feel free to delete this post.

krodha wrote:
Visualize the A like "A" and then it's the same mirrored/unmirrored... visualize everything according to your perspective unless you're sending it out to other beings or into space etc then reverse it... when you're receiving it back from other beings/space then it's again normal to your perspective


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, March 21st, 2012 at 6:45 AM
Title: Re: essential texts
Content:
featherhead said:
thank you for the suggestions.
it's just hard to figure out where to start, as one thing i have learned is that buddhism is not at all like most "religions" in the sence that buddhism seems to have nothing like the christian's "bible" or islam's "koran"; one book that kinda says it all.
there seems to be a million different things to read depending on exactly which path you choose to follow, which is where i am having trouble. i don't know what path is right for me, and with so many different paths, and so many different translations of so many different texts, i find myself just "throwing darts at a map" trying to decide what direction to go in.
any further help any of you can offer up would be greatly appriciated.
thanx again.

krodha wrote:
It's good you're taking your time to investigate different paths and vehicles in the dharma. If its any consolation they all mirror each other in one way or another so any insight you gain is going to be applicable across the board for the most part. And even if it isn't knowledge applicable yana to yana it's still good to be multi-cultured between the schools and vehicles, because after all it is about your own personal experience. As for finding what's right for you, when something intuitively resonates with you on a level where a teaching is found to be especially compelling, that is probably the place to start. And once you choose a certain direction that doesn't mean you can't delve into the other schools of thought, it's good to stay open to anything that can be beneficial to you and others.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 at 5:04 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Were deviating into dangerous waters fast here!

Dronma said:
Better than splashing in the mud, asunthatneversets!

krodha wrote:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX8KXx40hRA


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 at 4:49 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
krodha wrote:
Let's try to stay constructive everyone... Were deviating into dangerous waters fast here!


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 at 3:39 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
Dronma said:
Much Ado About Nothing!
The whole topic has been mutated to a personal controversy between gad rgyangs and Namdrol.

krodha wrote:
What seems like personal controversy on this thread is more like a resurfacing battle which originates from an epic and ancient war spanning eons of thread. We may never see the end of it, but know that you'll learn some interesting things and gain valuable insight while it goes on. It never sleeps and it cannot be stopped... Resistance is futile!


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 at 3:03 AM
Title: Re: Consciousness in the Heart Sutra
Content:



Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 at 2:25 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
if sentient beings are not the source of marigpa, then what is?

krodha wrote:
Sentient beings are the product of delusion and misapprehension, so saying that sentient beings could be the source of something is like claiming the snake in the rope/snake analogy could be the source of something. The snake is only the result of something, which is misunderstanding and delusion, likewise sentient beings are the same. Nonrecognition is the source of marigpa.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 19th, 2012 at 2:13 PM
Title: Re: Consciousness in the Heart Sutra
Content:
krodha wrote:
What makes you posit that the skandhas are interpretations of noumenality? It seems like you're holding an assumption that sensory perception is a translation of something beyond the senses.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 19th, 2012 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: "Location" of mind in Dzogchen
Content:


Sönam said:
The crystal canal is not about mind ...

Sönam

asunthatneversets said:
Whatever term you would say the crystal canal concerns is synonymous with what I'm designating as "mind". I don't usually refer to it as mind either, it only warranted that title in the context of this thread to show the wide array and uses of the term "mind". So any deviation in shared view between you and I is going to be merely semantical.


Namdrol said:
No -- in this context the mind is physiologically sited in the lungs, and wisdom is sited in the heart. This is one key difference between the common teachings (i.e. mind has no source, no location and no destination when it leaves) and the uncommon teachings (mind has a source, a location and a destination).

N

krodha wrote:
Ok I was using mind as a synonym for wisdom, i wasnt implying sems was in the heart, but you're right not the best attempt at swapping terms since mind is accounted for already my mistake


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 19th, 2012 at 12:52 AM
Title: Re: "Location" of mind in Dzogchen
Content:


asunthatneversets said:
Its value/use applies mostly to tögal I'm pretty sure

Sönam said:
The crystal canal is not about mind ...

Sönam

krodha wrote:
Whatever term you would say the crystal canal concerns is synonymous with what I'm designating as "mind". I don't usually refer to it as mind either, it only warranted that title in the context of this thread to show the wide array and uses of the term "mind". So any deviation in shared view between you and I is going to be merely semantical.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 9:23 AM
Title: Re: "Location" of mind in Dzogchen
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,

Could it not be that mind does not have a place to stay, because its very base would be emptiness?

So would the mind realy abide inside the body together with its memory?


Mutsog Marro
KY

asunthatneversets said:
That's the difference between thought-based "mind" and "mind" as in the primordial "enlightened nucleus" or whatever label it's given in the heart. There's pretty in depth descriptions of how mind resides in the heart and actually manifests out into(as) the "objective sphere" through the eyes.




kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,

Thanks for your reply.

In how far, would be that inside  - outside experience over the medium "eyes" , be illusion ?
Then,  in how far could be that experience be valued or be of use ?


Mutsog Marro
KY

krodha wrote:
Its value/use applies mostly to tögal I'm pretty sure


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 4:10 AM
Title: Re: "Location" of mind in Dzogchen
Content:
kalden yungdrung said:
Tashi delek,

Could it not be that mind does not have a place to stay, because its very base would be emptiness?

So would the mind realy abide inside the body together with its memory?


Mutsog Marro
KY

krodha wrote:
That's the difference between thought-based "mind" and "mind" as in the primordial "enlightened nucleus" or whatever label it's given in the heart. There's pretty in depth descriptions of how mind resides in the heart and actually manifests out into(as) the "objective sphere" through the eyes.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 18th, 2012 at 3:37 AM
Title: Re: "Location" of mind in Dzogchen
Content:
CapNCrunch said:
"asunthatneversets" recently quoted Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche from (I'm assuming) the Second book in the "As it is" series thusly:
The relationship between dharmadhatu, dharmakaya and dharmadhatu wisdom is like the relationship between a place, a person and the person's mind. If there is no place, there is no environment for the person to exist in; and there is no person unless that person also has a mind dwelling in the body. In the same way, the main field or realm called dharmadhatu has the nature of dharmakaya. Dharmakaya has the quality of dharmadhatu wisdom, which is like the mind aspect."
I happened to read this right after reading a passage from Longechenpa's commentary on the Precious Treasury of the Basic Space of Phenomeon, (Richard Baron, LCN's translation) where Longchenpa is quoting the "Great Garuda" and says:  (pp 50 of the 2001 Padma Publishing text)
Just as a flower has no place to grow in the sky, having no support, the mind is not localized in the body, so there is no possible support for habitual patterns
1)  Is this apparent contradiction just a translation issue - one of the hazzards of not understanding Tibetan while still trying to understand the Great Perfection teachings based primarily on texts that have been rendered in English, a language that is, by all accounts, simply not a good interface w/ Tibetan?
2)  If it's not a translation issue, then why the contradiction?

So, to echo the question posed (for the first time ever) by the Pixies:  "Where *is* my mind?"

krodha wrote:
It can also depend on the context of the statement, and to whom it's being directed. There's obviously lots of ways the mind is spoken of, you get statements like; the mind resides in the heart, everything is mind(including what's perceived to be a body/world), there is no mind, the mind is localized, its non-local and non-established, etc... I'd say the safest bet is just to know that mind/body/universe are all intermittent states, then you don't get caught on being stuck on a certain notion, and each statement is allowed to be appropriate in it's own right, because they're all correct in their appropriate contexts.

And then you also need to know when mind is being spoken of as the thought-based-mind, and mind as in the awareness, consciousness type "mind" and then the ultimate nature of mind which is clarity and emptiness. There can be alot to discriminate between.

And "where is my mind" is also a common tool the historical Buddha and countless teachers since traditionally implement. It can be a useful and effective exercise. Usually the thought-based mind is the one in question there. But it can be used in the other ways mind is spoken of too. They'll all give the same result more or less.

The heart is the residing place for the mind in dzogchen though.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 1:44 PM
Title: Re: Cancer rare in Egyptian mummies.
Content:
krodha wrote:
There's no doubt industrialization, chemical byproducts, genetic engineering of food by companies like monsanto, hormones in meat and dairy, western medicine being controlled by big pharma companies who need artificial strains so they can patent their meds that merely treat symptoms instead of curing, pesticide spraying etc are the cause of the sharp increase in cancer... Were destroying ourselves.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 3:52 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:


Dronma said:
I agree with asunthatneversets. 
I am new in Dharma Wheel, so I do not know what was happening before.   
But if the numerous topics and discussions which misrepresent Dzogchen is exclusively a latest phenomenon, then - with all the risk to sound paranoiac - I say that it could be a deliberate attack....

krodha wrote:
It wasn't deliberate I think they meant well and have their heart in the right place.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 3:47 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
It's wonderful that it's accessible but traditionally it was only given to those deemed mature enough to comprehend it's message.

krodha wrote:
Orville Redenbacher


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 2:43 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
And unfortunately it's implicitness has potential to be misunderstood and ran with by those who automatically relate it to traditions like advaita etc..

trevor said:
You don't know that, so please admit it. You don't know what "other people" think.

krodha wrote:
There was a series of topics and discussions on here in just the past week which were exemplary of this. In the sense of both misconstruing dzogchen to be advocating utter complacent non-action (as opposed to skillful non-action) and also mistaking clarity as a fundamental ground awareness instead of understanding the clarity to be inseparable from emptiness. It seems to be pretty self-evident this tends to occur.

My comments aren't directed towards anyone in particular, I'm just noting that it tends to happen. Which is why there was such a calculated and monumental backlash to such notions on this board recently, because those notions misrepresent this teaching. This is the downside to the open and easily accessible state of dzogchen this day in age. It's wonderful that it's accessible but traditionally it was only given to those deemed mature enough to comprehend it's message. So in it's wide distribution to individuals of capacities and backgrounds which span the spectrum there is room for misunderstanding. And if that misunderstanding is allowed to proliferate then the integrity of the teaching can be potentially compromised. So for that reason misunderstanding paraded as genuine insight must be systematically annihilated with extreme prejudice. Conservation of integrity is of utmost importance.

And you're right, none of us can read "others" thoughts, but we dont have to when theyre openly put on display in the form of misguided insights and erroneous views.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 17th, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Title: Re: Two approaches.
Content:
White Lotus said:
1. Patrul Rinpoche to Nyoshul Lungtok:
''Theres really nothing to it''
''Do you see the stars in the sky?''
''Do you hear the dogs  barking in the Dzogchen monastery?''
''Do you hear what i am saying to you?''
''Well, the nature of Dzogchen is this, simply this.''

the first approach could be summed up... just be. or according to lonchen Rabjam, normal awareness....

best wishes, Tom.

krodha wrote:
I think it's more that those who don't understand misinterpret and misconstrue this type of statement to be advocating that ones normal afflicted nature is "it", but that isn't what he's saying. He's using skillful means to convey the nakedness and simplicity of pure perception. But it certainly isn't describing the delusional dualistic perception dzogchen and the dharma serve to remove. And he isn't saying "just be", his words are meant to aid in discovery, and remove notions of seeking for it "elsewhere". He's just saying "here, it's this right here, now seek to understand how and why it is just this". Method 1 and method 2 are the same, it's just method 2 is a bit more explicit while method 1 has a more implicit nature. And unfortunately it's implicitness has potential to be misunderstood and ran with by those who automatically relate it to traditions like advaita etc..


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 15th, 2012 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche about Non-Duality
Content:
heart said:
More good stuff from DJKR

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


/magnus

krodha wrote:
The metaphor he uses at 24:35 is great... thanks both of you for posting these


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 15th, 2012 at 3:55 AM
Title: Re: "...and after 12 years, he was liberated into space."
Content:
padma norbu said:
HENH!? <- that's a very nasal "huh?!"

krodha wrote:
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TFDCrcoboQ


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 7:02 AM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
gad rgyangs said:
what if you're a closed-minded petty intolerant self righteous fundamentalist and you practice dzogchen, what are you reborn as then?

krodha wrote:
Rush Limbaugh


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 6:07 AM
Title: Re: after understanding im nothing
Content:


tuddel said:
the problem is i dont find a reason to continue this life.logically even my body doesnt want to continue as i see.
im not saying this in a depressing way.im very happy actually.
but then i see many people suffering and i need to help them then that i see is the way.

krodha wrote:
But if this "you" has clearly been apperceived to lack inherent existence, then what is not finding a reason to continue in this life? What is there to accept or reject life? It seems the same "I" that was seen to be nothing has re-emerged in that insight, which actually serves to negate the initial insight. The true absence of the "I" should manifest as a complete and total severance beyond intellectual understanding.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 5:22 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
it says "since there is nothing but X1 and X2, X does not exist" how does that make sense semantically?

Namdrol said:
You are being myopic:

Here is the passage Vimalamitra is commenting on:

There is no object to distinguish in me, the view of self-originated wisdom; it did not exist before, it will not arise later, and also does not appear in anyway in the present. The path does not exist, action does not exist, traces do not exist, ignorance does not exist, thoughts do not exist, mind does not exist, prajñā does not exist, samsara does not exist, nirvana does not exist, vidyā itself does not even exist, totally not appearing in anyway.

Context, context, context.

krodha wrote:
Would you say the translation you just posted above is most accurate? (I assume you would being that I'm sure you translated it)

I posted this same passage earlier but a different translation and there seems to be a few clearly noticeable differences. I believe someone(Mr. G?) already posted a quote from you(in response to an unrelated post) stating that use of the term "gnosis" is unnecessary and can actually potentially muddle things up, but aside from that there also seems to be other terms which don't correlate.

This is the other one:
Within self-emergent primordial gnosis, 
there are no objects to be experienced,
There is nothing which has previously passed away,
Nor anything which will subsequently emerge,
Nor anything at all which currently appears.

There is no karma,
There are no latent karmic propensities,
There is no dimmed awareness,
There is no mind,
There is no psyche,
There is no insight,
There is no cyclic existence,
And there is no transcendence of misery -
It is not the case that even awareness itself exists. 

There is nothing whatsoever which manifests within primordial gnosis.

- excerpt from The Tantra Of The Wordless Secret
(Absence Of Letters | yi ge med pa) or (Letterless Tantra | yi ge med pa'i rgyud)

At any rate I suppose it just goes to show the potential contrasting meanings and connotations different terms can give depending on translation, even though overall they both seem to ultimately convey the same insight.

Also should note because it ultimately coincides with the topic: Jax proceeded to label me a nihilist for posting this passage... and not that the labeling in and of itself matters (I'm not here to bicker about mudslinging), but it does serve to reify the necessity of this discussion at hand. Glad this is all being addressed thoroughly.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 13th, 2012 at 5:01 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen and Neo-Advaita
Content:



samdrup said:
Just Jax vs (mostly) Everyone else on Dharmawheel.....it got ugly sometimes!

krodha wrote:
It was ugly before?! I feel like in this thread... I just metaphorically witnessed Namdrol and Xabir take Jax out back and beat him halfway to death.

It was like office space...

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN3v0drnTdQ


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 12th, 2012 at 8:20 AM
Title: Re: The Golden Child vs Tibetan Buddhism?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Brotha Numsie!


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 12th, 2012 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Jax's Dzogchen
Content:
Jax said:
Padma there is no transmission from one to another. It's an illusion. The Wisdom is already you, within you. Nothing is needed from "outside". You are already perfect.

krodha wrote:
Though it is ultimately illusory, the transmission is the pointing out and the subsequent discovery of this innate aspect. So sometimes a push is needed from the "outside". Telling someone they are already perfect can again be misinterpreted as advocating complete non-action. Granted the action is ultimately illusory, but it's only illusory from the vantage point of the natural state. Non-action is also the route, but done skillfully. The natural state is not causally attained in any way or by anyone, yet the path must be walked, otherwise one remains in delusion which causes suffering, no matter how illusory it is, it appears real.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 12th, 2012 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Jax's Dzogchen
Content:
mzaur said:
What's with the lynch mob? Is this how a Buddha would act? You're only perpetuating your karmic tendencies by acting with attachment and aversion. I agree with Xabir that Jax's realization is of One Mind and lacks insight of non-inherency, but the lack of respectful discourse on here is a bit appalling.

krodha wrote:
Aren't you doing the same with your aversion to the lynch mob? The moment any interaction takes place attachment and aversion are automatically there.

But yes I agree with you I suppose we could all conduct ourselves in a better manner, you are right.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 12th, 2012 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: Final Resolution in Trekchod
Content:
Jax said:
Mr. potato head,

Quoting texts like a parrot without direct experience have caused your feathers to be colored by the extremes of nihilism.  That text was designed to smash the conceptual frameworks of the minds efforts at reification.  This is the same purpose of the Prajnaparamita Sutras. I will call you by your new name: Mr. Parrot Potato Head.

krodha wrote:
I assume this is directed towards me. Your compensation for your own insecurity, projected as an authority of some type has imputed the notion of me proposing a nihilistic view so you can maintain an image of yourself. My view is in no way nihilistic, but I certainly believe the view you expound is more akin to advaita(as do others), contrary to your self appointed expertise on dzogchen you ignorantly propagate. It is unfortunate the wall you have built up around yourself to hide this insecurity won't allow you to listen to others and/or take constructive criticism/critique.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 11th, 2012 at 7:32 AM
Title: Re: Final Resolution in Trekchod
Content:
Jax said:
asunthatneversets:

"Nothing is experienced, and there is no "awareness" perceiving experience. And pure primordial being is not an accurate definition or description of dharmakāya."

If that were true than you must be a potato...

Yes, semantics... perhaps you prefer:  "experience is self-aware"

krodha wrote:
Within self-emergent primordial gnosis, 
there are no objects to be experienced,
There is nothing which has previously passed away,
Nor anything which will subsequently emerge,
Nor anything at all which currently appears.

There is no karma,
There are no latent karmic propensities,
There is no dimmed awareness,
There is no mind,
There is no psyche,
There is no insight,
There is no cyclic existence,
And there is no transcendence of misery -
It is not the case that even awareness itself exists. 

There is nothing whatsoever which manifests within primordial gnosis.

- excerpt from The Tantra Of The Wordless Secret

I'm a potato.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 11th, 2012 at 3:25 AM
Title: Re: Final Resolution in Trekchod
Content:
Jax said:
The only stability is your unchanging perceiving of whatever is experienced. That unchanging perceivingness is Awareness, the heart of the Dharmakaya (Pure Primordial Being).

krodha wrote:
Dangerous words my friend... unchanging perceiving of whatever is experienced? May be a description of awareness in mindfulness... but not an accurate description of the natural state. You need to be careful with your words... though there is a possibility of your remarks being merely a semantical error, using terms like of whatever is experienced paints the wrong image of instant presence/pure presence. It allows for misinterpretation, and wrong view, which you very well may be victim of yourself, the verdict is still out on this due to the subtleties of the terminology you use, you just barely squeak by. Nothing is experienced, and there is no "awareness" perceiving experience. And pure primordial being is not an accurate definition or description of dharmakāya.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, March 11th, 2012 at 2:51 AM
Title: Re: Origins of Dzogchen
Content:
Jax said:
(don't mind me, I'm just Jax, flaunting my super-egotistical fake guru schtick).


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Title: Re: Origins of Dzogchen
Content:
wisdom said:
The only thing that matters is the contents of the texts themselves. Their origins make no difference to me. I will read a Dzogchen text with as much enthusiasm if its written by Garab Dorje or by some bum on the street.

As far as causal vehicles are concerned, if you know the great perfection then you know how causal vehicles benefit those who are not yet able to abide in the natural state without effort. In essence, causal vehicles help people overcome habitual ways of obscuring their own primordial nature, and to that end it serves Dzogchen well.

gad rgyangs said:
according to dzogchen view, causal vehicles are not some kind of preliminary practice for the slow witted, they are delusions. they are the problem, not the solution.

krodha wrote:
But at the same time everything is a product of delusion according to dzogchen. Causal vehicles may be beneficial to some, there is a wide array of capacities and what is appropriate or inappropriate will be based on the individual, I'm sure you can agree...


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2012 at 5:52 AM
Title: Re: Origins of Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
Jaxwheel.net! The big question is; do you resemble jax from mortal kombat 2? And if so how do you feel about this?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 10th, 2012 at 2:59 AM
Title: Re: What is the Point of Togal?
Content:
Jinzang said:
Because of our strong habituation, it is difficult to see though dualism and abide in non-dual awareness. This is true even after the initial opening. So one uses special methods, like the Six Yogas to complement mahamudra or Togal to complement Trekcho. This is why tantra is considered a fast path, because it speeds up the process. Otherwise mahamudra/trekcho would be more or less the same as sutra practice.

Astus said:
Interesting. They explain the nature of mind as complete with the three bodies and needs no improvement. Of course, that doesn't mean there is no need for practice. But what is strange to me is that compared to "By not altering it from being as it is, The state of buddhahood is now spontaneously present." and "The conduct is nondoing and the fruition beyond adopting and discarding.", I find that, however natural those visions are, all the techniques and instructions are extraneous. Comparing this to Mahamudra teachings, the Six Yogas can be complementary, but they are not necessary nor are they the next step.

krodha wrote:
I wouldn't say extraneous, the visions are product of the utter dissolution and exhaustion of dharmata. I wouldn't even say it's to strengthen trekcho... trekcho is the means to cut through obscurations, and rigpa is the basis or foundation of these practices so it's not necessarily to strengthen rigpa either. It's referred to as "leaping over" because it's the pinnacle practice to utterly attain perfect buddhahood fully exhausting all the obscurations of body, speech and mind... a process of returning the elements to their unobstructed and original form of light. There are no contrived visualizations like other common practices, a series of four or five postures coupled with certain gazes and ways of breathing produce a very specific series of visual experiences, each representing an aspect of reality being exhausted. The visions are activated by certain gazes related to certain light sources and/or pressure being applied to certain sense organs in a specific way. It's all lamp, bindu, energy related. Overall it's a complete and total breakdown of "reality" and for that reason it is quite unparalleled by any other practice in any other system. Unbelievable stuff!


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2012 at 4:30 PM
Title: Re: rigpa != presence ?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Good read thanks for posting!


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2012 at 4:07 PM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
krodha wrote:
What other systems have thögal? Goose egg.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2012 at 1:39 PM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Damn xabir just came with the heat! Y'all don't wanna see da heater. And the plot thickens...


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2012 at 11:47 AM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
padma norbu said:
At $70 per person per day, he's probably not really raking in the bucks, so I'm willing to believe it's a labor of love and he's really trying to help people... but, lol @ the idea he's figured it all out and we should be looking to him for advice. If he levitates and radiates colored lights, that's a different story....
Like I said, if he can levitate or display something else utterly miraculous, that's a different story. All I see is a kid who thinks he's got it all figured out. Relative to your average jackass, he's ahead of the game, but so what?

krodha wrote:
Are there any living masters who have supposedly attained siddhis like that? I'm just curious for off topic's sake... I haven't heard of any but I'm generally out of the loop. And also not to throw a wrench in the works but levitation and siddhis of that sort wouldn't necessarily mean one was fully realized in a dzogchen sense or anything. Powers may just be a sign that one has done certain practices very thoroughly. That being said they would certainly be quite a remarkable case!


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 9th, 2012 at 9:22 AM
Title: Re: Bentinho Massaro - Is he there in a dzogchen sense?
Content:
Jax said:
You are confused my friend. Garab Dorje made clear the means of conveying Dzogchen:  1.  Direct Introduction to the State.  2. All doubts resolved.  3. continuing in that State ( rigpa). There is no need for ANY empowerments. Garab Dorje's view and insrtuctions trump all later deviations as is being incorrectly shared here. Likewise Karma Lingpa or Padmasambhava said "no antecedent or subsequent practices are necessary" regarding the direct introduction offered in the famous terma. People are attempting to reduce Awareness to some sort of attainable state by engaging in foolish empowerments that only apply to "cause and effect" approaches. All these beliefs are no more than confused conceptualizations grounded in dualistic mind (sem).

heart said:
All empowerment's are actually designed to be direct introductions. In the Dzogchen tradition there are accordingly loads of empowerment's, both short and simple as well as long and complicated. Just read through the Rinchen Terdzö empowerment's http://orgyendorjeden.org/2010-2011-ODD-RT_Record.pdf " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; . Atiyoga empowerment's start on page 101.

/magnus

krodha wrote:
Orgyen Dorje Den! I was invited to help make prayer wheels there today.. Vajrakilaya themed I believe... Couldn't make it though


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 8th, 2012 at 2:38 PM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
I counted 6 A's too... That music was wild that popped up, everyone was laughing


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 8th, 2012 at 7:55 AM
Title: Re: James Low & Simply Being
Content:
Jax said:
From The Treasure Trove of Scriptual Transmission, Longhenpa, Padma Publications.

Page 190:  first main paragraph:

Lonchenpa writes:  "Since all phenomena are timelessly free, nothing need be done to free them anew through realization."

Next paragraph:  "Even the thought that freedom comes about through direct introduction is deluded.  One strives to free this essence from whatever binds it, but nothing need be done to free it, for unobstructed Awareness, which has never existed as anything whatsoever, does not entail any duality of something to be realized and someone to realize it.  There is equalness because nothing is improved by realization or worsened by it's absence, so there is no need for any adventitious realization. And because there never has existed anything to realize- for the ultimate nature of phenomena is beyond ordinary consciousness- to speak of realization on even the relative level is nothing but deluded.  What can be shown at this point is the transcendence of view and meditation, in which nothing need be done regarding realization, nothing need be directly introduced, and no state of meditation need be cultivated. So there is the expression 'it is irrelevant whether or not one has realization'."

krodha wrote:
So the purpose of this is to show that it is already this present awareness, there's no need for one to strive to achieve something else in time. That being said, there are still habitual tendencies which serve to reify the presence of this pseudo-self which seeks liberation. And normally that pseudo-self posits that liberation is something to be "achieved" as in an end which is reached, which it is in a sense, but not through the effort normally employed and propagated in the lower vehicles. Liberation comes when it is innately discovered that there never was anyone trapped in "samsara" to begin with. So therefore what is shown is the transcendence of view and meditation where nothing need be done regarding realization because if one remains in "the view" (aka rigpa as opposed to sems), the meditation (or non-meditation) takes care of itself. The enlightened nucleus wakes up and begins to recognize it's own display and all one has to do is rest in awareness, as awareness. When knowledge dawns it is seen that the obscurations only ever existed due to habitual imputation (and that may not ever occur because in that fruition, time is not present and neither is the individual who would fall under the spell of imputation to posit such a claim). He's using a bit of skillful means here and presenting an alternate approach to the "process".

Jax said:
Page 191: middle paragraph

"In this case what makes perfect sense in the Ati approach is the superior realization whereby one directly experiences the unobstructed state in it's nakedness, without relying on anything whatsoever. Since one does not experience separation from the essence of Awareness even for an instant, to say that is realized or perceived is merely to use a conventional expression."

krodha wrote:
He's saying this because the 'single point' one "decides on" is this ever-present awareness one is endowed with, yet again, due to habitual tendencies it can remain obscured... and become apparently re-obscured if identification with sems continues to dominate experience. Once it (rigpa) is recognized then one remains in that unobstructed awareness without relying on anything whatsoever. And it requires "no effort" because of the fact that one does not experience separation from the essence even for an instant. Even though, at the same time it requires much effort to break through the habits which bind (but this effort doesn't entail effort by the individual, it is just effort asserted and re-asserted to relax in uncontrived natural awareness which in fact does become completely effortless after some time). To say that is realized or perceived is merely a use of conventional expression because the realization or perceiving would be predicated on the separate "I" or "me" to realize it or perceive it, and the "I" is a convention which lacks inherent existence.

Jax said:
These quotations  are capable of freeing infinite numbers of  Dzogchenpa's and others who have yet to see beyond the web of their own dualistic projections of "cause and effect" efforts.  May all beings prosper!

krodha wrote:
This is true.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 8th, 2012 at 7:29 AM
Title: Re: James Low & Simply Being
Content:
Jax said:
by Jax » Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:29 pm

Longchenpa makes clear that "direct Introduction" is a fallacy, as the Dharmakaya has never gone out of itself. He also states there is no such thing as " recognition" as one has never left the Natural State. A forgetful ego-self has arisen in the unchanging Dharmakaya. The ego seeks recognition and realization. Awareness has no possible benefit from a direct introduction or the absence of one. Can't you see your existing immediate Awareness is unchanging? Can't you see that your current Awareness is beyond "cause and effect" efforts of such things as direct introductions? Can't you see Awaeeness has not and cannot be obstructed? How can the Dharmakaya be obstructed? Awareness is fully functioning in it's own perfection in each moment. It is engaged in the play of generating a "yidam" that is no more than a character in a dream. That's the " self" that experiences samsara. It's purely a mental construction. One is perfect, Awareness is self perfect. Two perfect, it's samsaric projections are perfect. This wisdom cannot be attained by some seeker... Awareness has never been in dualism.... This is a much more accurate and direct pointing out by Lonchenpa, then what is being offered today in current Dzogchen.

krodha wrote:
Alas! Though I myself am devoid of straying, from my dynamism straying emerges. Nature having arisen unobstructedly and unceasingly from the unchanging Ground, dimmed awareness is naturally emergent from within compassionate resonance's indeterminacy. As an analogy, although clouds form in the sky, it isn't the case that the clouds genuinely exist there but rather they emerge adventitiously. Just so, dimmed awareness is not present at all within the Ground - dimmed awareness emerges from spontaneous presence arising in the manner of compassionate resonance, which comes to be termed "an abiding reality of the Ground's spontaneous presence". Furthermore, this is present as a great indeterminate manifestation. 
- excerpt from The Exquisite Auspiciousness Tantra

From within the lighting-up of the great differentiation, 
Both existence and non-existence emerge;
The common site is termed the foundation of straying,
And since it becomes polluted with dimmed awareness
That which is known itself appears to be stained.
- excerpt from The Garland of Precious Pearls Tantra

Therein, the Ground of indeterminate spontaneous presence
"Strays" through the pollution of this triune dimmed awareness,
quartet of conditions, and cognitive energy.
- excerpt from The Conch Shell Lettered Tantra

So straying does seem to manifest, and therefore avidyā certainly appears to exist. From the perspective of avidyā a process does take place, though when buddhahood manifests it is known innately that the process was illusory. Honestly, I initially made this same mistake and got my card pulled on here when I first started posting... and I see why now. Even though ones true nature is inherently perfected and wholly incapable of being stained in any way, via the manifestation of innate/imputed ignorance this nature is conceived to be fragmented into the dichotomy of self and other. For this reason ignorance does proliferate and build from the ground up... to say that ignorance does not exist, and that there's nothing to do... would mean that one's dimmed and dichotomous awareness is in fact the full fledged immaculate gnosis achieved through the implementation of anu/ati-yoga and the other vehicles, and this is not the case. So while you're right that this awareness ever-present in one's experience is at base perfect and is fundamentally endowed with the properties/characteristics you mentioned, it is dimmed, and it is obscured by afflictions from the perspective of one trapped in delusion. So unless action is taken one remains in ignorance (even though this is ultimately a falsity once awareness recognizes it's own display and buddhahood manifests). It's a catch 22 and requires skillful means to achieve, because you're right, if one acts from the personal and seeks a goal in time, one remains forever trapped, but at the same time if one does nothing they also remain trapped.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, March 8th, 2012 at 2:21 AM
Title: Re: Defilements and projections onto other people
Content:
duckfiasco said:
Some questions before I forget. I feel like I'm going in circles, but I hope it's actually a spiral... albeit a very, very gradual one

From a relative point of view, we see objective outside being observed by subjective inside, so we can go, "He's rude" and feel like quality X out there is observed empirically by person Y in here. The substance of our being is this experience which we create with our aggregates.

krodha wrote:
'Aggregates' is just a relative term used to break experience down into constituent pieces for means of evaluation. They're solely a convention. "We" create nothing, because "we", "I", "you", "me" are imputed projections (conventions) as well. Nothing is created or destroyed.

duckfiasco said:
It still seems obvious to me though that there is something aside from those aggregates that influences them. Is it still inaccurate to say they're part of the continuum of existence, like cells in a body, even if the aggregates are not a discrete, enduring self?

krodha wrote:
It only seems that way, because you're accepting that there are inherently existent aggregates for some type of influence to act upon. Positing that something is acting upon "something else" is always ultimately a product of projection(but is useful in it's place). Yes it would be inaccurate to say they exist in a continuum of existence. It's truly all tetralemmic and paradoxical in nature when it comes to capturing this truth in words.

It's naturally cleansed of the four extremes' stains.
- The Tantra Of Awareness' Natural Freedom

duckfiasco said:
I can see how changing the process of observation can change what is observed in the sense that the observer has no other referents, but why would that have any substantial bearing on the thing itself, and therefore how others might perceive it?

krodha wrote:
These reference points and processes are conventions of language... and all lack inherent existence. That includes the 'thing itself'. There appears to be bearing on the 'thing itself' because there never was a  'thing itself' to begin with. The perceiving of a 'thing' is a projection of  ignorance and the removal of this veil of ignorance is the dawning and actualization of truth.

duckfiasco said:
I feel like I'm getting two messages... that our experience of a thing isn't the thing itself, but then there is no thing, just our experience of it. It feels like it all boils down to subject-object again.

krodha wrote:
Language is naturally dualistic so it's impossible for it to accurately describe that which is being discussed. But to clear up your two messages in a way that points somewhat closely; Experience appears to happen, however there's no experiencer and nothing which is experienced. However the absence of self/phenomena cannot be believed, because the self is reborn in the belief, as that which believes or disbelieves.  The experience of a thing is a projection, there is no 'thing itself'(even apart from sensory perception like noumena). So there are no 'things' or objects anywhere in experience(of course there is conventionally). But if this is left on the level of belief then it's a rebirth of the same exact ignorance. A notion of absence is just as imputed as the original notion of appearance. A subject-object split of any nature is a projection of ignorance. Thought creates all separation, the problem is that thoughts are believed, and it's believed that thoughts are merely commenting on a 'thing' which inherently exists apart from the thought. But in truth the thought creates the 'thing'. The thought implies a thinker and that which is thought of. Thought and memory create time, space, everything. If you can start to view thought in it's suchness, as merely a sound, that points to nothing and self-liberates the moment it appears, and then eventually see that there's no one who views the thought but that it is self-originated... and it continues to collapse in from there with a few other possible steps until it's only emptiness.

duckfiasco said:
I remember reading in one of my books that thinking, "I don't exist" and "Only I exist" are nearly the same wrong view. It's frustrating that those options keep popping up in my head.

krodha wrote:
This is because holding onto either view is what reifies the alleged "holder".  Only a self would believe there's no self. The intellect cannot access the true state of what-is. Attachment and aversion is what generates and keeps the illusion of self/other alive.

duckfiasco said:
When I meditate on emptiness of self, I dissect all the parts of myself and try to locate where this sense of solid "self" comes from. It's not in my fingers, bowels, eyeballs, brain... it's not in a memory, thought, opinion, or even consciousness which can be knocked out. And not a single one of these exists in its own right, but has a gazillion causes and matter helping them be what they are, while they in turn influence everything else. There's not even really control by something over something. It's just stuff being caused and creating other causes.

krodha wrote:
On the highest platform causes are actually conventions as well, as is matter. But the causal view is no doubt helpful, just don't take it to be an ultimate truth.

duckfiasco said:
So then things start to get very weird. If this is so, what in the heck is observation really, just change by a different name? How is it so clear that there is no observer when I search for one with a fine-toothed comb, then one magically appears as soon as I get off my meditation cushion? And if there is no solid, controlling observer in the ultimate sense, how could there be influence over the process of observation? It feels like it's all smoke and mirrors.

krodha wrote:
Change is an imputed projection. Its a useful convention but experience is always in the immediacy. Observation and processes of observation are also imputed, a process would require time, point of origin, end point, etc.. And observation as an act itself would require an observer and something observed.

duckfiasco said:
And in the big picture, if there is no witness/observer to the aggregates of self and their observations, what is it that causes change from delusion to right view then experiences it?

krodha wrote:
The aggregates are also imputed as mentioned above, as well as observations... the cause for the removal of ignorance is described in different ways, and realization itself varies among the different vehicles. Realization in Theravada isn't to the same extent as mahamudra or dzogchen. Each tradition has it's own nomenclature as well. On the ultimate platform nothing ever happens, there is no change, no samsara, no nirvana etc.. But that is a little extreme for this discussion. I guess you could say 'that-which-is' suddenly becomes aware of itself, although that isn't exactly accurate either. The metaphor of the sun being obscured by the clouds is good too like Greg mentioned, the sun is ever-present and ever-shining and only seemed to be absent or difficult to see due to the cloud cover. The Dharma is the means to remove these clouds.

duckfiasco said:
I suppose in all honesty, I have no clue how to approach this problem. I can do all the thinking and intellectualizing I like (and believe me I have!) but it doesn't feel like I really know how to apply it. It's like I've studied music theory inside and out, but have yet to play a piano and for that matter, where do you even get one?

krodha wrote:
Again like Greg said qualified teacher is the best way to start. And then depending on your personal preference the vehicle you implement is up to you.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, March 6th, 2012 at 7:57 AM
Title: Re: Defilements and projections onto other people
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Halleys theory does not fulfil one of the four seals of Dharma:  " ALL phenomena are empty" ,thus it is not Buddha Dharma.

This is Mr. Halleys facebook profile outlining his personal interests: The Psychology of Paranormal Phenomena, Jungian Psychology, Connection Depth Psychology & Quantum Physics, Clinical semiotics, Spirituality, Psychic side of Sports, movie making and movies for archetypes and as dreams, dream interpretation, Dream Healing Energy, simulation.
Notice how the Buddha Dharma is not mentioned anywhere?

Now please feel free to talk about half-shorn sheep, I can understand and even agree with a lot of what your are saying, but at some point in time you may wish to differentiate between a sheep and a goat.  You see New Agers don't differentiate between sheep and goats, they figure if it's got hooves then it must be the same.  Unfortunately though, horses have hooves, cows have hooves, donkeys, mules, giraffe, deer and pigs have hooves.  Even camels have rudimentary hooves.  But guess what?!  They are not all the same. Well, except for the fact that they have hooves.

krodha wrote:
I don't think anyones attempting to say Mr. Halley is expounding buddha dharma.

But what he is saying about thought is the same thing the buddha dharma says.

All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him, as the wheel follows the foot of the ox that draws the carriage. All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him. 'He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'--in those who harbour such thoughts hatred will never cease. 'He abused me, he beat me, he defeated me, he robbed me,'--in those who do not harbour such thoughts hatred will cease....

- Opening lines of The Dhammapada



When you look upward into the space of the sky outside yourself,
if there are no thoughts occurring that are emanations being
projected, and when you look inward at your own mind inside yourself,
if there exists no projectionist who projects thoughts by thinking
them, then your own subtle mind will become lucidly clear without
anything being projected. Since the clear light of your own intrinsic
awareness is empty, it is the Dharmakāya; and this is like the sun
rising in a cloudless illuminated sky. Even though (this light cannot
be said) to posses a particular shape or form, nevertheless, it can be
fully known. The meaning of this, whether or not it is understood, is
especially significant.

- Padmasambhava


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, March 5th, 2012 at 3:41 PM
Title: Re: ChNNR Dorje Drolo retreat
Content:
krodha wrote:
I was surprised to hear blue too, I went into it expecting dark red.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2012 at 9:49 AM
Title: Re: Defilements and projections onto other people
Content:
duckfiasco said:
It seems this ignorance you mention works on several levels. When we go, "there is a perception" in the first place, is that even accurate? It seems like perceptions themselves only exist in relation to other perceptions that constantly occur as a backdrop, so they too are subject to anatta. Kind of like seeing a mushroom pop up and being unaware of the whole network of fungus underground.

krodha wrote:
I'm using perception as meaning a notion or an idea about experience(experience otherwise communicates nothing about itself, it just IS), so imputed conceptual overlay creates a false sense of separation between what seems to be an inner subjective self and an outer objective world.

duckfiasco said:
So I have ignorance of a perception arising separately, then I liberally misunderstand just what that perception says about the world, then react in accordance with habits and ideas without realizing that part, either. Sounds a bit discouraging! I suppose you can't work through ignorance without realizing how much you have to begin with.

krodha wrote:
Somewhat, the notion that objects and things exist separately(exist at all) is due to imputed perceptions(ideas about experience). And then yes everything spins out of control from there and becomes habitual to the point that this skewed view becomes the way things are, and to posit that experience could exist any other way seems completely counterintuitive.

duckfiasco said:
So in essence, we are a part of everything else. It seems obvious at first blush, but then it's kind of shocking how hard it is to live like this is true. It's very easy for me to accept ideas like my perception of a person is more shaped by my own mind than anything about them. But then you get into things like the double slit experiment, and it's like people (myself included) expect the "real world" to exist as wholly discrete from the subjective human reality. Seeing something as basic as an electron being affected by observation seems shocking. Self-grasping in another form, no?

krodha wrote:
It's not so much a thing you "live like", as if it's adopted as an idea and then you're set. It has to be actualized in your experience, beyond belief.

duckfiasco said:
I guess the challenge is not just reinterpreting this into more subtle terms of ego. It's not that I decide to perceive something a certain way, then it magically changes in substance to match my perception. That seems like the ultimate ego trip.

krodha wrote:
Ha well actually, it is something like that in essence. This usually would depend on what school of buddhist thought you're engaged with though. In some it is that way, substance does change. But there are safeguards to make sure the ego is either completely dismantled or held at bay until it is destroyed.

duckfiasco said:
The barrier for me feels like a tidy little package of habits. Me vs. you, mind vs. everything out there. I feel very drawn to the ideas you've brought up, even though I can't understand them beyond a theoretical vagueness. I have a lot more groundwork to build

krodha wrote:
The barrier certainly is a package of habits! Although if it's tidy or little I don't know, is can certainly seem large and daunting to some.

duckfiasco said:
What does discarding projections mean? Is it similar to the bare awareness that is the goal of some meditations? It seems like it would be very, very easy to attempt to drop projections then in fact throw some others up without realizing it. "Look at me, I'm perceiving reality with no projections, woohoo!"

krodha wrote:
Discarding projections essentially means getting to the point where you're no longer under the sway of your own projections. Notions of separation and feeling that you're a subjective entity living in an objective world (which is separate from you) is actually created by continual and habitual reification of projections over time. I'm not sure what you mean by bare awareness. Yeah that is usually the case, the process of coming to the state of wholeness is based on accounting for habits that create fragmentation, and yes some are very subconscious and will pop up without one realizing it if they aren't mindful and earnest.

duckfiasco said:
Like you tell me later in your post, I'm my own worst enemy here. I'm having a hard time getting out of the way I've thought for most of my life.

For that reason, it seems like what you're saying IS dualistic. Things somehow only exist if I perceive them. More projection at work, I bet. How convenient that someone very learned shares the views I already have!

krodha wrote:
Yeah mostly anything you describe using language and concepts is going to appear dualistic(in the description), it's unavoidable. A vague attempt at capturing it would be; [the observer]-[the process of observing]-[the observation] are all one thing.

duckfiasco said:
Would meditating specifically on emptiness help here? I know you're not preaching some capitalized Truth, more like giving road directions, but I can't even understand the directions yet.

krodha wrote:
Meditating on emptiness is a cornerstone of the dharma and yes it would be helpful. So this would mean investigating into the fact that everything in experience is dependently originated... and that nothing has an inherent existence by itself.

duckfiasco said:
Is this your way of exhorting me to "come and see"? This is all so tricky. I can see what you mean, I think. If we fight the "I" then we just make another "I" that has to somehow be better than the "I" we're fighting. And it can be even more dangerous if this new "I" is clothed in emptiness, non-self, and other Buddhist concepts. How wise the "I" now seems!

krodha wrote:
I suppose it is somewhat tricky that's why it's a difficult process and requires skillful means to actualize. It's just saying that realization(on one level) is the loss of this "I"... so how can "I" lose the "I"? Any attempt to remove the self is done by the self. So it's a process of chasing ones own tail in a sense. Likewise if one does nothing to attain it, one remains stuck in delusion. So it requires effort, but effort skillfully, and the dharma provides the skillful means to actualize realization.

duckfiasco said:
I take it the way to cut through all this is investigation, pure and simple?

krodha wrote:
Yes but investigate keenly and the right way... the buddha left thousands of ways to do this.

duckfiasco said:
I've found your posts so instructive and helpful, start to finish. Thank you for taking the time to write them and help me along. I'm very grateful

krodha wrote:
Glad to help! Some of the stuff I've said may seem counterintuitive and/or unclear or weird at this point. My word of advice would be to keep at it and remain earnest and hungry for it. In my own experience, i found that whatever I didn't understand I would try my best to, and then I would leave it alone and return to it some time later, even months, or a year later, and it would make more sense then after I had assimilated other information and had other realizations in my experience. So if things don't make sense don't get frustrated and don't give up... the fact that this is possible, that these realizations spoken of can be actualized, is unparalleled in importance.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2012 at 6:36 AM
Title: Re: Defilements and projections onto other people
Content:
krodha wrote:
I actually didn't realize that story was about Drukpa Kunley, he went rainbow?


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2012 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: Defilements and projections onto other people
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Yup and the mind of a Christian is the same as the mind of a  Buddhist, but a Christian will (use their mind) to attribute existence to God, will claim an eternal soul and will posit that religious fulfilment consists of going to heaven and playing a harp all day.  Should we also accept that analysis because it comes from a mind?

krodha wrote:
If it's in ones nature to do so, sure.  But your example is spot on with what were discussing, that the thought projected onto experience creates the nature of said experience. That is projection.

gregkavarnos said:
Well, we are taking this personally aren't we?

krodha wrote:
Are we? I didn't know.. Sounds like a great time though should we fight about it in the streets? How about meet me in downtown San Francisco tomorrow morning and we'll use kitchen utensils for weaponry... We'll go with spoons.. You can bring a ladle if you really want, you'll have more reach. Bring a pot to wear on your head.. Preferably one with the two handles on the side because if it only has the one long handle that sticks out and it's facing forward you're automatically disqualified. Loser gets a sky burial on alcatraz.

gregkavarnos said:
I'm not trying to prove any objective truth about the videos past the fact that they are not Buddha Dharma.  You want to see it otherwise?  It's your boat, whatever (Hacking the Unconscious: Beliefs, The Secret & Mind Control???) floats it.  I merely pointed out that the videos are new age and that this is a Buddhist forum.  Everything else is your projection (well, almost everything else).

krodha wrote:
First off I just want to make it clear that I in no way follow, endorse etc.. This dimitri guy. He has good insight on thought patterns and their relation to experience in regards to their projective nature, but other than that I'm only defending my use of his videos to avoid total discrediting at the hands of Sir Greg "I like to stir the pot" Kavarnos (which I'm glad he does!)

My argument is that the buddhadharma approaches the subject of thought patterns and how they effect ones experience in the same way this dimitri fellow does. Not the rest of it. 'Hacking the unconscious' is clearly referencing dispelling the habitual patterns of thought that reify separation and suffering, which go unnoticed and/or are usually taken to be commonplace amongst most people. 'Mind control' is referencing how many of these habituated patterns are instilled in us as children, especially in the west where spiritual traditions really only tend to reify dualistic view rather than cutting through it.  Those terms taken out of context certainly sound radical and almost conspiracy theorist in and of themselves. And no doubt this guy posits some unique theories other than his teachings on projection, but I only referenced his stuff for the insight on thought, not anything else.

So what he says about the nature of  thought projection, and what the dharma says are the same.
As I said when I can get to some books later today I will post some dharma quotes which match my sentiments.

gregkavarnos said:
So  now this Dimitri Halley dude is the 6th Patriarch Huineng and Drukpa Kunley simultaneously?  Whoa!!!

krodha wrote:
Zing! I like your sarcasm, and you seem like a happy guy smiling in your photo i'm glad to see that. My only correction would be that I prefer "Drukpa Kunley the Enlightened Pervert" but other than that you're golden!

gregkavarnos said:
I'll take that as a compliment!
:namaste:

krodha wrote:
Anything less would be uncivilized!


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2012 at 3:42 AM
Title: Re: Defilements and projections onto other people
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Firstly, this is a Buddhist forum and the question was posted in the section "way of the bodhisattva" subsection "exploring BUDDHISM ".  Buddhism has Abhidharma to explain the workings of mind (basic function of thought), it does not need Jungian psychoanalysis

krodha wrote:
Jungian psychology just happens to be based on projection, which is what this thread is about. If you'd feel better about my points being backed up with Buddhist sources I'll assemble some and post them. They will be of the same nature. The mind is what is being discussed, and the mind and it's attributes are universal. The mind of a buddhist and the mind of a non-Buddhist function the same way. I don't want you to adopt whatever points I'm attempting to make, if something I say doesn't vibe with you then discard it. I don't believe what anyone says, and certainly don't believe the "theories" of this dimiri fellow. I empirically investigated what he pointed to and found that i benefitted from it. All of my statements are free standing, I only posted those videos as a supplement to what I was saying. Look at your mind, and how it accepts and rejects things based on points of reference. Rejecting something automatically because it doesn't scream Buddhism. We understand you don't care for the video... If you think you're going to establish or prove some objective truth about the videos beyond your own opinion then you're kidding yourself.
gregkavarnos said:
Rajneesh and a whole host of other new age guru types also spoke of the dharma with high regard and saw the monetary profit that could be made off it.  That does not make them Dharma teachers.  Anyway if he was a full blown Dharma practitioner I am sure it would have been pasted all over his facebok account and his blog profile and...

krodha wrote:
It's speculation either way. You've heard those stories of the head of the monastery posting the statement about the mind and it's mirror like qualities only to return the next morning to find his paper annotated and corrected. Causing an uproar until the janitor finally came forward who had become realized by secretly listening to the teachings and practicing without anyone knowing. And he was named the new patriarch. Or the stories of the village madman who is a beggar and considered an insane nuisance by all the local practitioners disappearing one day... And then everyone finding only his hair nails in his house... Having attained rainbow body and being wise and realized worlds beyond any of the practitioners who ignorantly labeled him a nobody. You never ever know.
gregkavarnos said:
I am not interested (and this thread is not the place) in discussing how anybody's theories contrast/deviate from Dharma.  I am interested in Dharma.  There's more than enough of it to learn without having to contrast it to the half baked theories of the unenlightened (including myself).  I tend to take my Dharma as original as possible, once I fully understand and realise it then maybe I can start to produce my personal take of it.  Until then, just call me a fanatic! Buddha mini gun.jpg

krodha wrote:
Fanatic.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2012 at 12:33 AM
Title: Re: Defilements and projections onto other people
Content:
krodha wrote:
Speaking of "new age" teachers; anyone interested in more projection themed discourses and teachings should check out Byron Katie, all of her work is based on projection. She has a simple 4 step process for identifying projection and turning it around to reveal the source within yourself. She calls it "The Work". And she is "Dharma certified".


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, March 3rd, 2012 at 12:16 AM
Title: Re: Defilements and projections onto other people
Content:
gregkavarnos said:
Dimitri Halley is a new age psychologist/psychotherapist, not a Buddhist, thus it comes as no surprise that the videos confused you.

krodha wrote:
Firstly, his question was about projection. Not Buddhist projection, not non-Buddhist projection. Anything this Dimitri guy is saying applies to the basic function of thought (and our relation to thought in general), and it correlates with the dharma just fine. I wouldn't link up some bullish*t and lead people astray. Nor would I share something if i was unsure of what i was attempting to convey and/or my points were based on elementary notions/conjecture. I'm not here to waste anyones time let alone my own.

Secondly, with all respect, how on earth would you know if this Dimitri guy is or isn't a full blown dharma practitioner? Do you know him?  For all we know he could be a seasoned practitioner. He certainly speaks of the dharma in high regard and uses Buddhism as an example of a tradition which hasn't strayed into delusional dogmatic religion and still maintains it's roots as a genuine vehicle for soteriological fruition. I know this board is no stranger to a plethora of different people, and some here and there who make unfounded statements, don't mistake me for one of them.

That being said, I appreciate your opinion and I'd love to hear you further explain and specify how these basic aspects of thought contrast and/or deviate from the dharma.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, March 2nd, 2012 at 6:04 AM
Title: Re: Defilements and projections onto other people
Content:
duckfiasco said:
I have to admit I'm a bit confused about how to use this information about observation, though I find it fascinating.

All this is diametrically opposed to how we normally view things so it's a bit of a mental wrestling match to make sense of it. Is this the gist of the idea in Buddhist terms?

krodha wrote:
It's completely natural to be confused but that's good you find it fascinating! Some would say your fascination signifies that you're karmically predisposed to this knowledge and are ready for it. All of it is undoubtably diametrically opposed to, and surely contrasts how we normally view things but that is the point. How we normally view things is due to ignorance or avidyā, which is predicated on habitual patterns and tendencies to reify a dualistic schematic of subject-object. This dichotomy is unreal apart from it's illusory nature, it has conventional value but apart from being a convention it is a fallacy.

duckfiasco said:
There is an absolute truth (suchness), and we continue to perceive it on relative terms (subject-object) because we latch onto our aggregates as something wholly separate and unique. Ignorant of the existence of this process, we see exclusively our version of things, believing we have no part in creating what we perceive. There may be hints of what the actual thing or experience is if we try to average out many relative experiences. This may even be what science tries to do.

krodha wrote:
Being able to experience reality in it's suchness is the doorway to liberation, although labeling suchness as an absolute truth in-and-of-itself would ultimately be a misnomer. Suchness is a quality of what-is and is an extremely important pointer, but in this teaching and on one's path to posit any type of absolute truth can be dangerous, I would advise that it'd be beneficial to hold any conviction of absolute truth very lightly. We have to use labels and words to communicate, but ultimately any label, idea, concept etc.. is going to be a projection. This goes for aggregates as well, aggregates is useful in seeing that "things" and experience itself are product of constituent parts but again, to hold this as a truth is only going to serve as a block.

"Just as the Buddhas have spoken of 
"I" and "mine" for a practical purpose;
Likewise they spoke too of "aggregates", 
"Elements" and "sense-fields" for a practical reasons. 

Such things spoken of as the "great elements",
These are fully absorbed into consciousness;
Since they are dissolved by understanding them,
Are they not falsely imputed?"

- Nagarjuna: excerpt from his 60 Stanzas

So seeing that "we see exclusively our version of things, believing we have no part in creating what we perceive" is also important insight to gain because it starts to disarm the notion of taking our perceptions as king. We start to see the relativity of any opinions, beliefs and ideas we hold onto about 'things' and this is a step in the right direction because it allows us to unlatch from our projections in that way. This unlatching starts to bring projections from a level of subconscious imputation paraded as inherent truth, to a new level of 'conscious knowing' that our ideas are merely implementations of conventional language for communication purposes. But this is the catch; this realization of relativity in our notions and ideas is absolutely necessary, but if it's left here then one remains in avidyā. This is because to conceive that it's possible to identify "hints of what the actual thing or experience is if we try to average out many relative experiences" is assuming that there is a 'actual thing' 'out there'. This definitely is what science tries to do, although newer schools of thought such as quantum physics and such are starting to deviate from the old paradigm, the old paradigm still subtly reigns supreme in dominating understanding. That Dimitri Halley guy touches on this in one of those other videos where one of C.G. Jung's successors is being interviewed and is explaining something in the context of comparing something psychologically to known science, with the reigning scientific paradigm being used as the fundamental inescapable absolute truth to make the comparison against... making a comment such as (and I paraphrase) "mythology is always present, that's like asking 'is matter always present in todays world?' and the answer is of course, yes" to which Dimitri replies(again paraphrased) "there is no matter, that is the illusion". (Mind you I'm not continually going to or quoting this Dimitri guy as some kind of great guru who has all these answers or anything. It just naturally fit the conversation at hand.) But it is inescapably true; this is the scientific process this day in age, and is considered the scientific process. To gain the 'true' knowledge of some 'thing' by using experimentation or deductive reasoning etc... and as I said they're getting closer and closer, but the duality of the 'thing' in question, being an object, will have to be removed before the reality of experience can shine in it's true form. And sadly this cannot be done if it is continually approached from a dualistic perspective, because the dualistic perspective becomes the confines that the experiment dwells within. Reality mirrors how it is perceived, if you perceive it as something separate it is that way, and if you can get to the point where this perception is realized to be projection and it is discarded, then reality will reflect that knowledge. Experience has plasticity in this way, your projections shape and define it, it doesn't define and shape your projections(but of course it does shape you in a fundamental way, you being a projection yourself, and a natural formation or expression of it).

The point being that there is no 'thing' beyond the projection of a 'thing'. There is no way to know something in it's true form apart from your projections about it. There are no hints of the actual state of affairs or the thing in it's actuality. The 'thing' cannot be known apart from your knowledge of it, and the thing is in fact your knowledge itself and inseparable from that-which-you-are. To put it another way, as you stare at this computer screen, you feel as if when you get up and walk away from this computer it is somehow still existing 'over-there' or 'in the other room' or something of that sort, but what needs to be fundamentally understood is that the 'thing'(computer screen) is the experiencing of it. The computer screen IS the visual seeing of it, and the tactile touch sensation of it(I have to again clumsily say 'of it' as if there's something the vision or touch is objectively contacting). The computer screen IS vision, the computer keyboard IS touch. And you ARE the vision, you ARE the touch. Merge with the senses, the subject and the object coalesce to create a continuum, this is your true state. But this must be actualized experientially, apart from intellectual understanding.

duckfiasco said:
If you are enlightened or an arahant, then you have full knowledge of how your aggregates operate. Being a human living in society, an arahant is still subject to emotional responses and distortion via our sensory apparatus like everyone else, but the difference is they intuitively *know* what's going on and can see through their own crap, so to speak. In that way, they're able to know the absolute truth.

krodha wrote:
Yes but why settle for being an arhat? You are only your own worst enemy in this... if you remain open and earnest and ferociously inquire into why this is, you will traverse this path swiftly. Being a 'human' is a projection as well, your true state has existed since beginningless time, ever shining, ever present... it's only obscured by our habitual tendencies and presuppositions(projections). This is why you hear of gurus saying 'let go of everything, let go, let go' because when you drop the projections, the true state of affairs becomes self-evident.

duckfiasco said:
I'm still very much entrenched in a dualistic view of the world. When I first listened to those videos, it seemed very easy to interpret it as "there is the world out there, there is me in here, I create an illusion of what is out there in myself." Especially dualistic language like observer/observed can be a stumbling block.

krodha wrote:
Ah but you see this is how we become our own worst enemy! By saying "I" am still very entrenched in a dualistic view... "you" can ONLY ever be entrenched in a dualistic view, because "you" imply "not you"... there must be a keen investigation into the nature of this "you" or "I"... if you see through this sense of a subjective self you'll see through the sense of an objective world, the two go hand in hand, but mind you fighting against the "I" only strengthens the "I" because only the "I" would fight. Only the ego wants enlightenment or liberation and it will NEVER get it, enlightenment and liberation will come when the "I" that the whole process is dependent on is seen as false.

Your insight into "There is the world out there, there is me in here, I create an illusion of what is out there in myself." is one level of it, and must be actualized. From there attempt to see through the projections of externality(world) and internality(me in here) they're only projections, the problem is that the projections are believed to be true. Dualistic language like observer/observed can be a stumbling block to some, for them taking the middle ground of simply 'observing' may be beneficial, but each person requires different insight and realizations.

duckfiasco said:
This may seem like it's going into the realm of pointless mental gymnastics, but it feels crucial to understand... I was even wondering how we can tell when to help people and what they need if everything we perceive is ultimately our own view of reality. Someone who appears to need our help or compassion may not need it at all, and vice versa. Basically, how can we know anything if all we know is our side of things? I presume this is why meditation is so crucial... to get to know how you're perceiving so you can even begin to understand what's really being perceived. I can feel my own dualistic view warring with what I'm trying to understand

Sorry to ramble. Anyone ever feel almost crushed by their own ignorance? I have a bit of that going on now

Anyway, thank you all for your thought-provoking comments. I feel like I'm almost beginning to understand something, but the pieces aren't quite in place yet.

krodha wrote:
To truly help others you need to be beyond the need for help yourself. But always help others who turn to you and confide within you, love everyone like you love your own family. A good quote by Bodhidharma comes to mind "If you can understand the mind, everything else is included. ... Those who don't understand the mind practice in vain." much like the aphorism "know thyself"... if you understand yourself, you understand everyone else, if you understand the inner workings of your own mind, what causes you to suffer, the results of action based on acceptance or rejection then you understand the inner workings of everyone else's minds. Strive for wholeness and peace within yourself and there's no way you can miss the mark in helping others, but always help others in any circumstance, unless you are being taken advantage of, never allow your kindness to be taken as a weakness.

You hit the nail on the head with "I presume this is why meditation is so crucial... to get to know how you're perceiving so you can even begin to understand what's really being perceived" but meditation isn't merely sitting in a lotus posture and visualizing or chanting mantras... it is an all inclusive delving into the depths of your mind at all times, and watching your reactions to events and people, noticing your projections, your judgements, your interpretations, understanding that you are the power behind and the cornerstone of every experience, that you create what you experience on the level of perceiving, projecting, in every shape, way and form.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 29th, 2012 at 3:12 PM
Title: Which Of The 17 Dzogchen Tantras Have Been Published?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Which of the 17 Dzogchen tantras have been translated and published? And if so what books are they available in? Partial or complete(by partial I mean a considerable amount, not an excerpt).

I know some are in the Precious Treasury collection by Longchenpa and #12 is translated by Keith Dowman in his book Old Man Basking In The Sun but does anyone know about any of the others? There's a few titles associated with each listed.

1. Natural Arising of Awareness (rig pa rang shar)
Great Tantra of Self-Arising Awareness (rig pa rang shar chen po'i rgyud)
Rangshar Tantra (rang shar gyi rgyud)

2. Mirror of the Heart of Vajrasattva (rdo rje sems dpa' snying gi me long)

3. Lion's Perfect Expressive Power (seng ge rtsal rdzogs),
Tantra of the Perfected Lion (seng ge rtsal rdzogs kyi rgyud)

4. Absence of Letters (yi ge med pa),
Letterless Tantra and/or Tantra of No Letters (yi ge med pa'i rgyud)

5. Beauteous Good Auspices (bkra shis mdzes ldan),
Tantra of Graceful Auspiciousness (bkra shis mdzes ldan gyi rgyud),
Tantra of Great Auspicious Beauty (bkra shis mdzes ldan chen po'i rgyud)

6. Penetration of Sound (sgra thal 'gyur),
Dra Talgyur Root Tantra (sgra thal 'gyur rtsa ba'i rgyud)

7. Mirror of the Heart of Samantabhadra (kun tu bzang po thugs kyi me long),
Tantra of Samantabhadra's Mind Mirror (kun bzang thugs kyi me long gi rgyud)

8. Blazing Lamp (sgron ma 'bar ba),
Blazing Lamp Tantra and/or Tantra of the Radiant Lamp (sgron ma 'bar ba'i rgyud)

9. Studded Jewels (nor bu bkra bkod),
Array of Fine Gemstones and/or Norbu Trako (nor bu 'phra bkod),
Tantra of Studded Jewels (nor bu phra bkod kyi rgyud)

10. Coalescence of Sun and Moon and/or Union of Sun and Moon (nyi zla kha sbyor),
Tantra of the Union of Sun and Moon (nyi zla kha sbyor gyi rgyud)

11. Pearl Necklace (mu tig phreng ba),
Pearl Garland Tantra (mu tig phreng ba'i rgyud) and/or (mu tig 'phreng ba'i rgyud)

12. Natural Liberation of Awareness (rig pa rang grol),
Tantra of Self-liberated Awareness (rig pa rang grol gyi rgyud)

13. The Six Spheres (klong drug; klong drug pa)
or Sixfold Expanse (klong drug gi rgyud)
or Six Spheres of Samantabhadra (kun tu bzang po klong drug pa'i rgyud)

14. Naturally Born Perfection (rdzogs pa rang byung) and/or Self-Existing Perfection

15. Black Wrathful Goddess (nag mo khros ma); referring to a black form of Vajrayogini (khros ma nag mo)

16. Blazing Relics of the Buddha-Body (sku gdung 'bar ba),
Tantra of Shining Relics (sku gdung 'bar ba'i rgyud)

17. Mound of Gemstones (rin chen spungs),
Tantra of the Jewel Mound and/or Tantra of Piled Gems (rin chen spungs pa'i rgyud)


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 29th, 2012 at 8:26 AM
Title: Re: Defilements and projections onto other people
Content:
ghost01 said:
I think we can avoid being drawn to our thoughts and emotions, but we can not stop them from happening. So we let the thoughts arise and return the mind to stillness, no?

krodha wrote:
You're right you cannot stop them from happening, but what does this fact imply? Why can't you control them? Inquire into the existence or nonexistence of this potential "controller".

Also as for letting the thoughts arise and then allowing the mind to return to stillness; It certainly appears this can happen, and these seeming processes are no doubt useful for navigating our apparent experiences and life in general on a relative level. However, though these processes are useful and appear to happen, they are in fact only useful due to their conventional nature. The "seeming" nature of their conventional appearance manifests because the conglomerate of senses(vision, hearing, touch, smell, taste and their respective "objective fields") combined with what is taken to be subjective inner-appearances(such as thought, emotion, memory) are merged to create the illusion of a substratum(or ground of being) which endures through time. That substratum is translated as "I" or "me" and appears to be separate from 'things' which arise and fall, as if it is an unmoving background which can watch them but remains untouched, like a witness. In truth however, this witness would require time and no time is ever experienced, only projected as existing via memory(past) and anticipatory-thought(future). No past or future are found in direct experience. Memory of the past, and thoughts about the future only ever arise in the immediacy. So there is no substratum("I" or "me") which endures through time, only presently and spontaneously manifested qualities which are of a single nature. That which is referred to as "thought" just appears and lacks a thinker, likewise the senses are self-manifested and lack an observer to observe them... it's even clumsy to use terms like "appears" and "manifest" because it implies time, but these terms are inescapable using language. It's all projection.

Attempt to locate the "I", "me", "you", "he", "she", "they" etc.. in experience apart from thought, or the story that thought tells.

ghost01 said:
If I am my thoughts and emotions, am I also the sunshine, the wind on my face, the feeling of cold or warm on my skin?  How are thoughts and emotions different from these perceptions?

krodha wrote:
Thoughts and emotions are no different from those perceptions, and in the theme of "projection" the thought IS the perception. And yes you are all of those things... minus the "you".... and minus the "you" who would believe these things to be true... it's always already the case.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 29th, 2012 at 7:04 AM
Title: Re: Defilements and projections onto other people
Content:
ghost01 said:
I don't think it's applicable in every situation, but for example when we see police brutality, and we find ourselves angry and maybe even thinking violent thoughts in response, how could this be if anger isn't a problem in our own mind?

Or when we see someone who is exceedingly arrogant, and we don't like them, how could we understand arrogance, or humility, or any other emotion-- unless they were also present in our mind? So when we encounter a person who invokes a certain emotional response in us that we dislike, it's because that emotion is also strong in us, and when it's invoked we say, I don't like that person.

If we're not drawn into our thoughts and emotions, they don't bother us, and we have no need to project our responses onto other people.  Of course, this is kind of a simplification and doesn't always apply.

krodha wrote:
True but there are other levels to this still. And it gets more subtle. I would argue that it(projection) does always apply, in every situation, just not always overtly evident. You are a projection, the other is a projection, so the dance of accepting and rejecting persons, places, things, events, qualities, characteristics, traits, beliefs, opinions etc..  predicated on these illusory positions (self/other) is always rooted in projection. If one thinks any of these aspects are free-standing inherent qualities of experience they are in delusion.

You can't NOT be drawn to your thoughts and emotions because you ARE your thoughts and emotions... there's no one there apart from them. There is no thinker of thoughts, or one who feels the feelings, or 'has' emotions. Not being drawn to ones thoughts and emotions so that they don't bother us is a step in the right direction but if things are left here one remains lost.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 29th, 2012 at 6:27 AM
Title: Re: Defilements and projections onto other people
Content:
krodha wrote:
One of the ways projection happens is the ego's (or thought based sense of identity) tendency to ensure it's own perfection and innocence by projecting problems and defilements onto the other/world as separate causes, as a victim of these causes. The ego does not like to admit wrong, or weakness or any personality trait/characteristic that is viewed as negative and will instead either outright deny these qualities or project them onto others as the other person's characteristics or defilements they inflict onto us.

Other times projections are the resurfacing of past instances of severe emotional trauma which have been suppressed. For example if one was abused as a child and obviously lived in fear due to not being able to control a clearly unfortunate situation, they may either 1) carry that mistrust they had in their abuser or situation forward and place it onto others (people/places) which share the same traits as the initial abuse. Or 2) will reenact the past abuse they suffered onto others because they can now be in control and that reliving of the situation (now at the polar opposite of the spectrum) serves as an emotional catharsis... but is never liberated through the actions.

The hardest ones to catch are the really subconscious projections in daily life which is what I think you're inquiring about... these are tough to spot sometimes, and it isn't an exact science, there has to be some very open inquiry into the possible causes. Sometimes it can be very simple, yet seem greatly obscured due to the ego going to great lengths to remain undefiled.

Something like feeling a statement by a political candidate is divisive is more-so clinging to a view of yourself which is mistaken as an inherent self-evident aspect of experience or reality. If you understand that all that is happening is a bunch of people are standing around spouting opinion and beliefs then it's usually disarmed. But if you want to spot the divisive quality in yourself; it will usually always be your attachment to that which is being contrasted by the other. Sometimes it can be something you want (either now or in the future) because you feel that is what will make you content, so if there is possibility of that being destroyed by another, then you will project an evil quality onto them.

This is why buddhism speaks of the middle way, you're eventually coming to the place free of these extremes and attachments. Because the extreme views and the attachment to these views creates this false sense of identity.

Other ways projections can occur is through expression, for instance in some cases when someone wears flashy clothes or drives a fancy car they may (more often than not) be compensating for insecurity within themselves. Also when you meet people who are egotistical, in that they exude a very pompous attitude appearing overtly confident, they are more often than not very insecure with themselves. When you encounter someone who likes to put others down, they are doing so to build up their own depleted sense of self. And then the same goes for those who would attack these traits I just listed, if someone were to put someone down for acting pompous and egotistical, this is a projection of theirs. If someone was to put another down for wearing flashy clothes or driving a fancy car it is because they, within themselves suffer from the same insecurity, only they compensate for it by demeaning others. I used to work for a distribution company which sold local rap and hip-hop music and we would have the artists coming into the office for business and such, and obviously some rap really glorifies a rough lifestyle and personality which was something expressed by those we dealt with. But I never forgot what my boss told me one day, which was the loud and tough guys who come in and try to act hard aren't the ones you need to worry about. The guys to worry about were the ones who came in quiet, composed, soft spoken and polite. Those had a past of being hardened criminals and such were extremely mild mannered and polite, they had nothing to prove. The others who acted the "gangsta" role were (more often than not) the insecure ones who were in fact the opposite of their projections.

This is all because our sense of self and that which is other are intermittent states, they are co-emergent interdependent qualities. You can only know one, in the context of the other. There's a quote someone made I forget who which goes "If I am I, because you are you, then I am not I, and you are not you."

The most important thing to realize is that we are never experiencing a person or world separate from ourselves (on a few levels). Everything experienced is filtered through our own reference points. So instead of seeing the other person, you are seeing your translation of them, your interpretation. Or your view of the world socially, politically, economically, environmentally, also is being filtered through your point of view as interpretation. Nothing is ever experienced as it truly is separate from you, and this is because there is no way for this to happen, because in truth there is no thing anywhere that exists which is separate from you to begin with. We only perceive it to be this way because of our delusion. Our perceptions are illusory, falsehoods paraded as facts and inherent aspects of reality.... in truth there is no perception, only projection. So working deeply with projection isn't a process of accounting for these qualities within ourselves so that we can reach a point of understanding ourselves and others without the projections, the process should reveal that self/other are projections themselves, and that nothing exists apart from ideation, translation, opinion, belief... which are born of, and kept alive by habituated thought processes.

And because experience lacks inherent separation, our intentions and beliefs actually manifest and create what-is on a fundamental level.

This guy Dimitri Halley goes over projection very thoroughly and extensively in his videos... and how one can move from feeling you observe a separate reality to seeing that all that you view is a projection of your self unconsciously. So the process is bringing the subconscious (which is paraded as a separately existing world) to the surface, thus changing it to a conscious observation. From there, changing observation to see that which you observe and the observing itself are inseparable. And that you yourself are only these processes, completely absent apart from them.


Transcendence Series 1/5: "Beyond Observation"
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

direct link to video on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHOLnBftXGM

The Observation Problem 2/3: "Thinking about Thinking"
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

direct link to video on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-RPZ_8LGDA

Ask & You Shall Receive Series 6/12: "Hacking the Unconscious: Beliefs, The Secret & Mind Control"
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]

direct link to video on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t27eEKnUbUM


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 28th, 2012 at 5:35 AM
Title: Lama Lena on The Nature Of Mind in Dzogchen
Content:
krodha wrote:
Short video of Lama Lena discussing the Nature Of Mind in the Dzogchen teachings and other yanas. Video has been around for awhile but I've always enjoyed it, thought I'd share.

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Direct link to video on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hb2NDSpqdKQ


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 27th, 2012 at 8:41 AM
Title: Re: What Is The Name Of This Mantra?
Content:
alpha said:
This is a praising prayer dedicated to the founder of Tashi Menri Ling monastery in the Tsang province of Tibet
His name is Nyame Shrab Gyaltsen and Bonpos keep him in very high regard thinking of him as the second Buddha.

Dechen Gyalpo Kunzang Gyalwa Dhud
Mijed Szung Dhen Sherab Ma wey Seng
Zam-ling Bon Gyi Tsuk Gyen Nyam-med Pa
Sherab Gyaltsen Zhab la Sol wa Dheb.

krodha wrote:
You rule... found the mp3 here http://bonshenling.org/audio/

Much appreciated!


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 27th, 2012 at 3:10 AM
Title: What Is The Name Of This Mantra?
Content:
krodha wrote:
I've been wondering what the name of this mantra or song is for awhile now and was wondering if anyone could help? I have another recording of this song at the end of a teaching on mahamudra and it's beautifully sung, it's actually sung so powerfully that even my 3 year old is captivated by it and likes it played. But I only have it at the tail end of a 45 min teaching mp3 and have been trying to find the recording by itself. Needless to say I haven't had much luck and had given up... and then came across this video today which has the same song (with someone else singing it) at the end. So seems to be an iconic mantra or song, figured someone here might know... any help would be greatly appreciated!

Here's the video from youtube I found today, it's a video by Tenzin Wangyal

The song starts at 3:33
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Direct link to video on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGlqHNeKOQw

The other recording (with the incredibly powerful vocals) is at the end of a teaching on Tilopa's instructions on mahamudra given at the ganges... the teaching is given by Dan Brown

Tilopa's Instructions mp3 can be downloaded for free in the link below for anyone interested in that as well... song starts at 46:30 on there, I emailed Dan to ask about it awhile ago and didn't hear back (figured he's a busy man with all the good work he does).
http://www.pointingoutway.org/doc.html


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 27th, 2012 at 1:19 AM
Title: Re: Jesus, a Buddhist?
Content:
krodha wrote:
Interesting Video with some interesting alleged facts

"Did Jesus Christ learn Buddhism ??"
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Direct link to youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmCS7P-vdRM


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 25th, 2012 at 4:00 AM
Title: Re: Awakening compassion dzogchen style?
Content:
padma norbu said:
Thank you for the explanation. Is it possible they would work even if I don't really have any real understanding of it? I received transmission, yes. I have attended retreats, yes. I have been practicing, yes. I am not sure I understand everything the way I should, however, and not sure if this lack of real genuine understanding interferes with this practice. Basically, I would be doing it by faith and by memorization rather than true understanding and knowing intention. By "knowing intention" I mean doing something in absolute surety of how it will turn out due to past experience, logic, etc. For example, if I move my pen on a page, I have a pretty good idea what I can draw. If I was blind, I would have no idea if there was any ink in the pen or if I was drawing anything. The Six Lokas practice for me is a bit like drawing a picture without knowing if there's really any ink in my pen because I don't know if I'm really doing it right, what each mental process is really supposed to be like and if I have done it right.

krodha wrote:
The lack of real genuine understanding probably doesn't inhibit the practice too much since that initial base intention is there, but I'm sure if you gained that genuine understanding it would significantly strengthen the practice and youd really start to see it bare the fruit it is intended to. It's like those flashlights which can go from a "widespread flood-light type beam" to a "sharp spotlight type beam" either way the light will help you to see in the dark(much like your initial intention), but the light is 10x more bright and strong when sharpened to a smaller area, and your practice will be too when you have that clear cut knowledge because that educated action will bring confidence.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 25th, 2012 at 3:10 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
krodha wrote:
Wait so what's the controversy?! I know there's no way everyone is agreeing right now... If that were to happen the Internet might violently implode inwards upon itself infinitely, swallowing the universe.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 24th, 2012 at 2:33 PM
Title: Nice Lil Dharma Song CHINESE TRANSLATION by M. Ward (Video)
Content:
krodha wrote:
"Chinese Translation" by singer/songwriter M. Ward...

Nice dharma themed singer/songwriter song

little dude in the video goes great transference rainbow at 2:28.... no big deal

if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Direct link to youtube page:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUfIKX5ReKQ


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
The basis is a convention isn't it?

gad rgyangs said:
the word "basis" is a convention, the basis is not.

It's only the basis from the perspective of non-recognition, because the "basis" is in fact is self-originated wisdom(emptiness). It's not as if there's some inherently existing ground or source called the basis.
one of the many names for that-which-is-beyond-all-partial-characterizations is "self-originated wisdom" (rang byung ye shes), and while its nature is pure/empty, it is also spontaneously manifesting and dynamically responsive (not "just" empty, and certainly not the reification "empti-ness"). The ontological status of the basis is usually described as "beyond existence and non-existence" or "not existent, and not non-existent". i think my favorite is "it does not exist as anything at all, yet it can arise/appear/manifest as anything at all."

If you can experience a sense of astonishment that there is clearly apparent manifesting going on rather than nothing, and then turn towards that in you which enables you to experience this, that is pointing to the basis.

krodha wrote:
Word. I actually didn't realize that is what was being spoken of when the term basis was being used. So how does the basis differ from the nature of mind? Or are they synonymous? Because the description certainly seems the same. I'm not even sure if "that in you which enables you to experience" can be considered accurate but I suppose it can on a basic level.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 at 11:21 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
krodha wrote:
The basis is a convention isn't it? It's only the basis from the perspective of non-recognition, because the "basis" is in fact is self-originated wisdom(emptiness). It's not as if there's some inherently existing ground or source called the basis. So ignorance comes prior to the basis because the basis (acting as a basis of "something else") is a result of imputed ignorance. If recognition that display is "self-originated wisdom's" own-display as self originated wisdom in-and-of-itself, the basis is no longer the basis but wisdom.

That's my stab at it... That being said isn't all of this basis talk irrelevant unless one is involved in certain practices? Mainly thogal? Seems like it's really attempting to capture something that linear thought and language can't properly represent except for a basic outline for those about to do said practices.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 at 9:00 AM
Title: Re: Awakening compassion dzogchen style?
Content:
padma norbu said:
There are some kinds of nastiness that aren't motivated by moral outrage. The sadist, as an extreme example, takes pleasure in harming others just because he likes it.

krodha wrote:
Right but why is this? Because they suffer from afflictions derived from ignorance. A lot of sadistic acts are predicated on power. It is a display of power much like rape is. For some reason they (either now, or have in the past) feel helpless and powerless, usually from being a victim themselves. So they inflict harm as an act of power so that they are now the one in control. They can now act as the giver of pain, and be the controller. And this control and power serves as an emotional catharsis and release of their own pain they harbor and feel tormented by. It is the projection of their own subconscious shadow fully manifested into the physical and expressed through the torment of another. While this doesn't mean their actions are justified or acceptable, knowing the root cause of their predicament allows you to approach it effectively and mindfully. Knowing that due to their attachment and identification with their own pain they are a victim, and their display of their own pain in the torture of others is an expression of this victimization which further victimizes. It continues the circle and perverts the fundamental ignorance which persists endlessly. That is being trapped in a hell realm. And those people are the pretas with small mouths and insatiable appetites. Their pain can never be satisfied or satiated. So you acting with compassion use skillful means to remedy their pain. Your heart has to open to all beings and knowing that there are fundamental causes to these expressions of samsara is the key to ending the cycle of ignorance. You act from love, you embody love. Compassion is knowing that wherever you look you see yourself and whoever you encounter you encounter yourself. When this blossoms in its fullness and the reference point predicated on the false "I" is seen as utterly empty, the reference point used to judge others and their actions is liberated and compassion remains. This is the great bodhicitta.


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 at 6:44 AM
Title: Re: Awakening compassion dzogchen style?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
I'd say awakening true compassion is the absence of acceptance or rejection, allowing what-is to appear as it does.

padma norbu said:
This is how I used to basically see it, since all is the display of the illusion of self and other. But, I think if you suddenly realize what you're allowing to appear is essentially pleasure at someone else's misfortune, then that is a problem. You could not indulge it and let it dissolve, but if it keeps coming back, then it seems to me like it's never really being addressed. It is strange, but something like this just occurred to me, I guess because I may have finally been more mindful than usual and so I noticed my thoughts. And I thought, "wait a minute, I am actually enjoying this thought of another's misfortune" and I began to wonder about this... if, knowing everything I know about samsara, I still take pleasure in another's misery despite generally thinking I feel compassionate toward people and frequently thinking throughout the day how everything is illusory projection, then how do you change something like that? To reduce it to something really simple so you can get my point: it's like enjoying the taste of pizza; if you like the taste of pizza, how could you ever not like it? You may stop eating it for dietary reasons or whatever, but you will never stop liking the taste of pizza.

This is basically self-cherishing and there are certainly many ways to change it, but I don't know... it worried me because I had the realization that over time it seems maybe I have become more calloused and selfish than I was when I first started looking into Buddhism seriously half a lifetime ago. I think 15-20 years ago I had similar ideas pop into my head but I probably either felt justified because I disliked whoever I was thinking about and so didn't really notice or else felt guilty about it and depressed with shame (I was quite down on myself back then, in general). But, yesterday, as my mind was wandering recently into these self-cherishing thoughts, I noticed a complete lack of guilt about it, but that it was just sort of compartmentalized in a "safe zone" like I had become used to saying to myself "just thinking, no harm done" so much so that I could really indulge such thoughts without guilt while enjoying the idea of someone else's misfortune. I've also noticed that as I've gained experience, I've become more hateful of certain attitudes and personality traits rather than more accepting of them. Sure, I'm more patient and accepting in some ways, but I'm more fed up and impatient in other ways.

I want to change all this ASAP. This dawning realization felt like a climactic scene in some b-movie where, after acting like a psycho for an hour and twenty minutes, the bad guy suddenly realizes he's nutso only when he accidentally kills someone he truly loves and then he gasps, "What have I become?!" before blowing his own head off. I don't want to have a secret place in my head where I can entertain hateful attitudes privately. The more these habits are repeated, the stronger they become, I believe. Maybe pizza was the wrong metaphor before— maybe it's more like coffee or cigarettes; an acquired taste, but one that quickly becomes addictive and is reinforced with every imbibing.


krodha wrote:
Same thing I'm talking about, so I'm saying you'd go to the root of that projected indulgence in another's misfortune, what you start to realize (more often than not) is that you, yourself are exactly the same as the other person you dislike (or that you're no better). Say for example; in my personal experience I had a hard time getting over those who inflict harm onto animals, or who dehumanize other people for their sexual preferences. I would loathe and abhor these people to the point that if one of them came to receive some kind of misfortune or pain, I would actually enjoy their suffering. And as you said this became deeply engrained, and in my eyes I was "right" because I felt that what they were doing was wrong. So I felt that any misfortune that came to them was deserved, and that misfortune was justified, and I took joy in what I saw as redemption for their wrong-doings.

Once I started to learn of the Dharma I started to realize this wasn't a right view, I knew it was counter-productive to progress in the teachings but I didn't know what to do about it. I still felt that my views were "right" because those other people we're harming or dehumanizing other sentient beings, and I felt I wanted what was best for all sentient beings, so retribution for any wrong-doing done to animals and those persecuted for their race, or sexual preference etc.. was justified in my eyes. Almost to the point where I'd see that church in the south who promoted that "god hates fags" agenda, and I hated them for that, and I seriously would think that if these people were all wiped off the face of the earth the world would be a better place for it. Or if I saw anyone hurting an animal in a documentary or anything like that I would become enraged (even today there is lingering sentiments of this due to it's thorough reification over time).

So what had to happen, is that I had to start to see that I was hating them for their hatred, except my hatred was justified for some reason. They hate and inflict pain on others because of their afflictions, and in turn I was approaching them just as they approach those they hate. In their eyes, they feel justified in their actions, they feel it's ok to harm others... and then I taking the opposite view, feel justified for hating them and feel it would be ok to see harm inflicted on them. To the circle just becomes more and more perverted. No answer is ever reached and I am no better than they are... I am them, and they are me. So I had to be open with myself and see directly and fully that this was going on, and I had to step back and account for this in my experience.

Once that happened it was forever diminished, I would see that they hated or inflicted pain due to afflicted views, so instead of hating them for that, I knew that they didn't know any better (and in fact felt justified) and my heart opened to them. I understood that they were ignorant of their actions, and while this wouldn't stop me from intervening if I saw them hurting an animal or abusing another person. I would do it from a more mindful approach, not driven by rage or anger, and instead of inflicting pain or abuse myself I could disengage the situation and then attempt to speak to them, if they wouldn't want to listen there's nothing I could do, but at least the chain would be broken because I wouldn't be reactive. The reactivity is a subconscious explosion, so me bringing that to my conscious attention within myself, I am not victim to my own ignorance anymore and can act with compassion.

Another example (and this may not be true on all levels, I'm not attempting to offend anyone or start some political discussion I'm merely using this for an example) of this on a macrocosmic level is the United States attitude towards policing the world, as a collective people the majority might feel justified for occupying other countries to ensure that they aren't furthering some agenda etc... but what we don't see is that we, the U.S. are the ones furthering an agenda, and starting war, killing others for our own ideology. We are the "terrorist" in the eyes of those countries we police. We become that which we reject in the world and then project that onto those we objectify. And our occupation doesn't "end" the circle, it just perverts it. Because it further upsets those who have hate for the west. We actually reify the hatred within those who hate is through our actions. So the "enemy" is ever recreated and solidified, and no peace will ever come to the world (even though we would feel we're attempting to create peace). Hate breeds hate.

So the hate ends with you. You are the answer. The peace isn't reached by changing your environment, your environment is changed by changing and finding peace within yourself.

From there, later in my personal journey I found the emptiness of self, and therefore the emptiness of other, directly in experience. And this forever made these subconscious movements conscious, they rarely arise but if they do arise I see them at once and they are dropped, dispelled and they self-liberate. They're no longer about an other who is a dream, and they no longer belong to the dream "me". It's all a dream born of ignorance of the true state of perfection.

This excerpt from the documentary Kymatica talks about the attitude of those who wish to inflict harm on others for their actions. And how this just perverts the problem.
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Direct link to video on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnyBb5858sE


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 at 2:27 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism / Nonduality Influenced Metal Bands
Content:
Lhug-Pa said:
When I was trying to fit in with Straightedge kids I listened to some Hardcore
.

krodha wrote:
Me too, except I still do... been straight edge for 10 years now.. Woooo. I love indie rock and hip hop and all that too though, love all music.


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012 at 3:36 PM
Title: Re: Awakening compassion dzogchen style?
Content:
padma norbu said:
What is the best practice for developing a change of heart once a real character flaw is noticed? I'm sure we could answer "guru yoga" to everything, but how about Tonglen, the 4 contemplations, prayer wheel, etc.? I'm sure they're all good, but does anyone have any specific experiences and recommendations based on these experiences? Or is there some specific dzogchen practice which perhaps has been taught by Namkhai Norbu and which I may be able to practice?

krodha wrote:
I'd say awakening true compassion is the absence of acceptance or rejection, allowing what-is to appear as it does. The breakthrough for me came with realizing that, "that" which I reject or repress in another is exactly "that" which I reject or repress within myself. So what you're fighting is really an aspect of yourself which you are ignorant of due to subconscious suppression. It's not always apparent but when you locate it within yourself it is immediately accounted for and brought from the subconscious to the conscious level and dispelled. Because in truth the other is a projection, and you yourself are a projection, the 2 sides of the coin reflect each other. You've heard the saying to change the world you must first change yourself... It's 100% true. If there's at any point in your experience something you are dissatisfied with in the context of another's negative action, belief, habits, etc.. It is a part of you which is being projected out and taken to be an objective "problem" or "flaw". If you can be open you'll find that the character flaw mirrors an aspect of yourself you have not come to terms with. I know it sounds kinda harsh! But it's flawlessly true, and it's the road to true healing and purification. Combine this with your other practices and you'll excel swiftly I promise


*edit: spelled excel wrong


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012 at 12:29 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
Sherab said:
My 2 cents:
Ignorance is not a phenomenon.
It is an absence of a phenomenon.
And that phenomenon is recognition of one's true state.

gad rgyangs said:
if recognition is a phenomena, then failure to recognize is also a phenomena. The question is: are all phenomena of samsara and nirvana appearances of the basis? And if not, then what is there besides the basis and its appearances?

krodha wrote:
I'm pretty sure that if you check back on any of the 6 threads you've become exceedingly efficient at making you'll locate a suitable answer there..


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012 at 6:09 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
krodha wrote:
It's also the type of thing where, as your practice develops you'll actually see a sharp decrease in ailments. You won't get sick. I remember in either "crystal" or "self perfected state" ChNN talked about how they would send accomplished dzogchen practitioners in to aid the sick during outbreaks of disease because they wouldn't fall ill. Having significantly decreased or fully removed duality from experience there's no longer a disease or an individual... All appears as the natural state.

So that also brings into question the inquiry into "material causes"... Are there actual material causes beyond what it is that you truly are? There truly can't be. Hints of this come into play in instances where placebo has just as profound an effect as the "real cure".


Author: krodha
Date: Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012 at 5:29 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen Community of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu
Content:
alpha said:
I understand that for a dzogchen practitioner having some concrete experience based on their practice is very important.
But one needs to know whether these experiences are errors or something which is natural and expected if certain practices are employed.

What is the way of gaining some clarity as to what is happening?

Somebody was sugesting that before going any further one should eliminate any possible material causes to these experiences by checking whether they are in good  health or having an ear or eye exam for example....

krodha wrote:
A qualified teacher should be able to give some sound advice...

but what types of experiences? Visions? Heat? Energetic movement? Vibrations?

some of it you'll just have to use deductive reasoning etc... like if you're seeing continual spots in your eye it could be cataracts or if you see constant yellow tinges it could be glaucoma, big stuff like if you feel you're losing vision, going blind, things are continually more blurry over time, those are things you need to worry about... but other than that there isn't much else and if you're experiencing visions while doing practices geared toward that... that's what's going on I'm sure.

Same with increased energy movements and heat/vibrations.

Some experiences can be kinda wild! But just stay relaxed and let it happen

remember experiences are usually signs that you're doing something right, but don't become attached to the experience! Take an almost indifferent attitude... when an experience arises that's out of the ordinary just treat it like any other "normal" arising... for example if you see a vision just relax and treat it like seeing a stop light turn from red to green, just a simple appearance.

There's certain texts that can give a rough outline of progress, I think "The Practice Of Dzogchen" by Tulku Thondrup was mentioned on here before... there's a rough outline in the back section

but always remember everyone is different and everyone is going to have different experiences, in some practices there's definitive signs of progress and in some it's really conditional to the individual.

it's sort of the type of thing where you'll definitely know more often than not.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 21st, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
I never denied circumstances, I just cleaned puke and gave a bath.

gad rgyangs said:
if thats not a universe, I don't know what is.

krodha wrote:
If "universe" translates and equates to a conventional relative appearance which manifests through imputed conceptual designations including space-time and memory I agree with you 100%.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 21st, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Like a collection of 'things' extended into space and time, created and destroyed with periods of time between arisings.
my kid just threw up gotta go! Be back later

gad rgyangs said:
seems like an "arising" to me....

but seriously: of course its all metaphors, including your kid's puke. we have to deal with "circumstances" as ChNNR likes to put it. Nevertheless, be careful not to slip into solipsism... you're not the only appearance of the basis....

krodha wrote:
Solipsism would depend on an individual mind or consciousness which would be solely subjective to a vast array of objective 'things' and 'states'. Which is not the case. Or a type of mind-only view pertaining to an individuated consciousness.  Which is not the case. I never denied circumstances, I just cleaned puke and gave a bath.


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 21st, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Like a collection of 'things' extended into space and time, created and destroyed with periods of time between arisings.
my kid just threw up gotta go! Be back later

gad rgyangs said:
seems like an "arising" to me....

krodha wrote:
Certainly appears as such.. It all appears to happen. That being said; in actuality, the conventional appearance of these happenings does not contradict the true inherent nature of what-is. If that is recognized and known to be true by means of "knowing ones own face" as its said, it inhibits the possibility of being fully emersed in the ignorance of non-recognition and duality.

What's being discussed is how a "universe" seems to arise. How an individual seems to exist. However no cosmogony or psychology are truly being talked about. All of these discussions about the basis are discussing something which is illusory and has never come or gone, appeared or disappeared.

The reason it's brought down to the level of the apparent individual is because that is where the ignorance can be dispelled most effectively. The apparent macrocosmic universe is only in relation to the microcosm of the apparent individual, but if the individual remains believing they are subject to an objective universe beyond themselves they're lost. So the cosmological aspects are applied to what is apparently individual and then the illusion of individuality, materiality and so on and so forth are annihilated into their true state. (that is, unless one ripe and of high capacity realizes their true state and own display upon direct introduction)


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 21st, 2012 at 9:57 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Who was speaking of abstract primordial cosmic states/manifestations?

gad rgyangs said:
this, and related threads, have discussed the so-called bardo state of the gzhi, in between manifestations of universes, the latent traces that impel the eruption of the new universe, etc. is that cosmic enuf 4 u?

Namdrol said:
Oh, this comes about because of traces of action and ignorance. Nothing in the basis changes, of course, what happens is that there is sort of cosmic pulsation of ignorance and its subsidance which results in the appearance and disappearance of samsara and nirvana; and as we know, traces can accumulate in wisdom.

You have to understand that all of this explanation of cosmic cycles is really intended to be brought down to the level of the indivdual's life cycle in terms of the four bardos:

The bardo of death == destruction of the universe up to the two higher form realms
The bardo of dharmatā == the arising of the sound, light and rays of the basis
The bardo of becoming == non-recognition of the basis
The natural bardo of this life == the appearance of samsara and nirvana

krodha wrote:
There is no "universe" as such, none of this is describing some phenomenal artifact type "universe" like the universe or cosmos are usually spoken of. Like a collection of 'things' extended into space and time, created and destroyed with periods of time between arisings. Everything said in those quotes by ChNN falls directly in line with all the discussion which has been going on previously on the basis and the manifestation of samsara and nirvana via non-recognition and recognition...

my kid just threw up gotta go! Be back later


Author: krodha
Date: Tuesday, February 21st, 2012 at 8:35 AM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


gad rgyangs said:
and lest anyone say "wait a minute- we were talking about the basis and the appearances of the basis during some kind of primordial cosmic manifestation." we can quote pg89 of "Crystal"
The Base, or Zhi in Tibetan, is the term used to denote the fundamental ground of existence, both at the universal level and at the level of the individual, the two being essentially the same; to realize the one is to realize the other. If you realize yourself, you realize the nature of the universe.
and that is why these are not dry, abstract intellectual deliberations about some abstract cosmic state, both the cosmic process and our state, our condition, are one and the same.

krodha wrote:
Who was speaking of abstract primordial cosmic states/manifestations?


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, February 19th, 2012 at 4:17 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:


Lhug-Pa said:
Manichaean Dzogchenpas....

Is there a such thing, as in Dzogchen and Manichaeanism actually being compatible?

Is that what some consider the Bönpos to be?


krodha wrote:
What aspects or themes of Manichaeanism would you say correlate? The gnostic?


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, February 19th, 2012 at 2:16 AM
Title: Re: from selflessness to emptiness
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
Why do you feel it's dangerous to claim the "mental aspect" is all there is? Whether it's all that is, is truly ultimately irrelevant, it's all conjecture. It's the classic phenomena vs. Noumena argument. If such a noumena does exist there is still no way to ever "know" it. What is experienced directly is what-is. There is no objective physical form and subjective mental representation(of said objective physical form).

5heaps said:
its a basic tenet of all of buddhism that you cannot have a mind/cognition without an object of engagement. so thats why we cant claim that only mental aspects exist. even the mindonly with their no external objects will never accept that only mental aspects exist.
http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/en/archives/audio/fundamentals_tibetan_buddhism/level_4_deepening_understanding_path/mind_mental_factors/recognize_basic_factors_mental_activity/transcript.html

krodha wrote:
The cognizer perceives the cognizable;
Without the cognizable there is no cognition;
Therefore why do you not admit
That neither object nor subject exists [at all]?

The mind is but a mere name;
Apart from it's name it exists as nothing;
So view consciousness as a mere name;
Name too has no intrinsic nature.

Either within or likewise without,
Or somewhere in between the two,
The conquerors have never found the mind;
So the mind has the nature of an illusion.

The distinctions of colors and shapes,
Or that of object and subject,
Of male, female and the neuter - 
The mind has no such fixed forms.

In brief the Buddhas have never seen
Nor will they ever see [such a mind];
So how can they see it as intrinsic nature
That which is devoid of intrinsic nature?

"Entity" is a conceptualization;
Absence of conceptualization is emptiness;
Where conceptualization occurs,
How can there be emptiness?

The mind in terms of perceived and perceiver,
This the Tathagatas have never seen;
Where there is the perceived and perceiver,
There is no enlightenment.

Devoid of characteristics and origination,
Devoid of substantiative reality and transcending speech,
Space, awakening mind and enlightenment
Posses the characteristics of non-duality.

- Nagarjuna


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, February 19th, 2012 at 12:57 AM
Title: Re: from selflessness to emptiness
Content:
catmoon said:
Terms like "physical" "particle" and "real" are imputations too. When we are gripped by the idea that there is something other than sense impressions that we can work with, a form of reification has taken place.

5heaps said:
same problem as i said earlier though: sautrantika has already established that "particle" and "physical" are imputations, but they dont accept emptiness.

i think the 2nd part of what you say can be dangerous. its a basic function of the mind to produce a mental aspect (its the clarity part of the definition of the mind, with the full definition being clarity and knowing)...to then say that that is all which exists is very dangerous. even in mindonly where some accept no external objects, they nevertheless still distinguish between objective physical form and the subjective mental aspect of colors and shapes in an eye consciousness.

so...still missing that link between sautrantika and the jump into emptiness. it cant just be "imputation this", "imputation that", since sautrantika already accepts imputation. in fact theyre the ones who invented it in a sense, thanks to Mr Sautrantika Dharmakirti

krodha wrote:
Why do you feel it's dangerous to claim the "mental aspect" is all there is? Whether it's all that is, is truly ultimately irrelevant, it's all conjecture. It's the classic phenomena vs. Noumena argument. If such a noumena does exist there is still no way to ever "know" it. What is experienced directly is what-is. There is no objective physical form and subjective mental representation(of said objective physical form). These are simply imputations. If these imputations continue to govern ones perception then they remain lost in duality and true emptiness can never be accessed. The idea that one is subject to structures and laws of some world outside of themselves is innately defeating.. Like a victim saying "well I can only do so much since I'm confined to these limitations". In truth there are no limitations, there are no natural laws of outer or inner, phenomena and noumena etc.. You give these notions power. You are the source of their solidity and presence in experience, they're 110% imputed. So your question of how you go from selflessness to emptiness within the confines of your view is impossible.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 18th, 2012 at 5:44 AM
Title: Re: What do you call this practice...?
Content:
asunthatneversets said:
shes Wangdors student and he's a beast, dude straight up stopped my thoughts one time for almost 5 mins I couldn't think even if I tried to...

padma norbu said:
This isn't a loaded question or anything, I'm just curious... would you say that this ultimately had much effect on you and if so, how? What I mean is, this could be a short-lived thing which gives you faith, etc. and you look back and go, "wow, that was awesome" and never forget it, but the effect itself may have worn off... OR, perhaps forever after that, it was much easier to access thought-free awareness and like that. Know what I mean? Just wondering.

krodha wrote:
You know, that's funny I hadn't really thought about it before.. I have just always treated it as an experience which instilled a genuine faith that there's immense power and truth to the teachings and the fruit they can bare. It legitimized stories you hear of siddhis and such. But presently in my experience I actually can access thought-free awareness at the drop of a dime and usually for as long as desired. I just always attributed this to regular sitting meditation and cultivating presence in daily life exponentially. But you're right for all I know that experience with wangdor could have played a major role. It was odd because it was unexpected, he speaks Tibetan and has Lena translate and the teaching was being given in a loft apartment actually which was packed with people lining down the stairs to the door. I was on the stairs so I couldn't even see him but Lena said he was going to give an empowerment and he started a moderately paced singing type mantra and all mental activity just stopped until he finished. The teaching was the flight of the garuda but I have no idea what he did or gave at the end. So I'm not sure if that experience and the diminishment/ability to willfully subdue thought are related but it could be. I try to disregard this, though it is useful for maintaining presence and awareness... I actually feel like an ass for talking about it for some reason, I'm a quiet and humble(not to imply I'd even consider it something to brag of) person and I know that is imperative conduct to maintain and follow in relation to ones path. Interesting though.


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 18th, 2012 at 4:21 AM
Title: Re: What do you call this practice...?
Content:
padma norbu said:
DAKINI WISDOM (instructional dvd)
DESCRIPTION:
The Tibetan word for the Sanskrit dakini is khadro, which means "sky goer" or sky dancer." In this DVD, Chagdud Rinpoche explains how a spiritual practitioner can liberate thoughts and emotions in the basic space, or vast sky, of mind's true nature through the realization of emptiness. This process of freeing the mind's poisons as they arise is the swiftest path to liberation.

http://www.tibetantreasures.com/DVDs-Dakini_Wisdom_DVD.html " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
$5 DVD with any purchase... probably worth it, eh?

Sounds familiar, but I don't see the word I'm looking for in the description.

krodha wrote:
Umm.. Dunno what you'd call it but that's the main practice for rapid progress. That's the beginning of resting in the natural state. It's still slightly dualistic.. You acting as the aperture and allowing phenomena to self-liberate, but it's the solid start. Call it contemplation, call it uninterrupted non-meditation.. But pretty much if one isn't doing that at all times or working towards being able to relax into that effortless self-liberating state, they're on a slower path.

I remember Lama Lena a year or so ago at a retreat said Dakinis are representations of our thoughts.. And emotions are reflections of thought. So naturally this dakini themed practice is geared toward thought and emotion work. Whether or not that's true about Dakinis I'm not 100% sure but shes Wangdors student and he's a beast, dude straight up stopped my thoughts one time for almost 5 mins I couldn't think even if I tried to... Which is just some siddhi stuff but that coupled with the caliber of their teachings certainly seems validating. I could be wrong and just allowed myself to be swayed by magic though for all I know ha!

That's the same style practice ChNN champions and says is of utmost importance (that and guru yoga of course).


Author: krodha
Date: Saturday, February 18th, 2012 at 2:47 AM
Title: Re: Dzogchen, Buddhist and non-Buddhist teachings...
Content:
catmoon said:
Did you mean to say "cause" instead of consequence?

The idea that Dharma is the cause and Dzogchen the result can't possibly be universal, simply because the are billions of Buddhists who are not Dzogchenpas.

Namdrol said:
All Buddhas are Dzogchenpas.

catmoon said:
Would that include the Mormon Buddhas?

krodha wrote:
All the Mormon Buddhas! Except for Mitt Romney... Because he's a Mormon sh*thead. Zing! Politics and religion in the same post, this thread just became officially inappropriate for dinner table/first date discussion. You've been warned out of compassion to avoid slappings from mothers / potential lovers.


Author: krodha
Date: Friday, February 17th, 2012 at 12:31 PM
Title: Re: Ground of Being
Content:
krodha wrote:
The eternal dance of Namdrol and gad rgyangs... I love it


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 13th, 2012 at 1:09 PM
Title: Re: from selflessness to emptiness
Content:
5heaps said:
... thought IS awareness, thought IS consciousness. Nothing appears to consciousness, consciousness IS these appearances...
visual objects ARE the colors and shapes.... and colors and shapes ARE vision. There isn't "seeing" and "objects which are seen", the objects are the seeing.
again this is all just straight up sautrantika, and i am not in disagreement with any of it

furthermore, whether or not the particles are intellectually known at the time of seeing an object is irrelevant...because as i already said, they are not ascertained by an ordinary consciousness. nevertheless, they do appear to ordinary consciousness since the object which the ordinary consciousness can ascertain is in fact made up of particles.

at the root of emptiness is the dismissal of actual physical and mental ultimates....and therefore the dismissal of markers and identifiers. however, giving up markers and identifiers completely feels too much like giving up the object completely, so i only want to dismiss overly-real markers and identifiers. again....how to do that....how to move from selflessness to emptiness...... to simply say that base forces/particles arent there _at all_ is wrong. even mindonly people who negate external objects completely still accept that type of physical form in their own qualified context

krodha wrote:
Why are you afraid of giving up the object? In my opinion you're holding onto a few presuppositions about the nature of experience that are poisoning the well in a sense. You're insisting that consciousness acts as a flashlight in that when it shines on an object, the object is experienced but when it isn't shining on the object the object is still there but somehow off screen or something. So you're saying that there are substantiated physical objects made of particles that exist separately from awareness? I'm not sure what to say it sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too, I'm afraid you're setting up barriers for yourself. There are far too many dualities in the schematic you're proposing to navigate to the place you want to be. Everything I mentioned above; the "straight up sautrantika" stuff will successfully dismiss actual physical and mental ultimates if they're applied to ones experience beyond the intellect. Because if the root of emptiness is essentially the dismissal of markers and identifiers (as you said), you'll obviously have to dismiss the markers and identifiers to establish emptiness. I mean, right off the bat; objects are dependently originated, on so many levels it's ridiculous. Everything is empty.. including emptiness itself, and emptiness teachings are undoubtably a process of giving up the ghosts that plague one's perception. We're talking about inherent existence versus conventional appearance. So you can dismiss objects' inherent existence and still know they have conventional existences. It's not as if 'poof' the objects will disappear, you're just not going to take them a seriously as you would, you'll know they're empty. If you want to take it further there are ways to fuse experience into it's natural state of timeless awareness, that will actually destroy physicality experientially, but that isn't achieved via intellectual understanding (except on rare occasions perhaps). These are all processes to remove ignorance. It is our own ignorance that makes the world and objects seem real.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 13th, 2012 at 10:13 AM
Title: Re: from selflessness to emptiness
Content:
5heaps said:
thats pretty good but constituent particles are in fact experienced any time you experience a fire hydrant. likewise constituent movements of mind are experienced when you experience an ordinary emotion etc. they are both experienced in the sense that they appear to consciousness (though they are not ascertained as being 'this' and 'not that')

krodha wrote:
The constituent particles are experienced? So prior to the day you went to school and/or read a book which informed you of particles and atoms and what-have-you, you knew 'things' were constructed of particles? My 3 year old certainly doesn't know of particles, if I asked him what a table was made out of he'd say "I dunno"... maybe once he goes to kindergarten he'll reply with "it's made of wood"... and someday down the line he'll say "it's made of particles". These are learned ideas, they are not inherent in experience. You presently do not see particles, you only know they are present at a subatomic level and therefore that knowledge governs your perception. Presently all 'you see' is shades of color and shapes (which bordering colors imply), that is all vision consists of. Kinesthetically you feel sensation attributed to muscle contractions, you feel tactile sensations when you touch things... soft... hard.. rough... smooth.. hot.. cold. Do the colors, shapes, kinesthetic feelings and tactile sensations communicate that particles are present? No. Your present experience consists ONLY of colors, shapes, feeling, auditory noise etc.. Now this is the kicker; there are not 2 separate parts to vision (1. the act of seeing and 2. objects seen), visual objects ARE the colors and shapes.... and colors and shapes ARE vision. There isn't "seeing" and "objects which are seen", the objects are the seeing. Colors and shape implies seeing, you never, ever, ever at any time experience unseen colors or shapes... they are one process... one appearance. The 'external' field of objects IS vision and is therefore your own display. You are looking at your own state. Awareness reflecting itself to itself in it's totality... timelessly. It is an ocean of being. Tactile sensations are the same way... not 2 processes, the touching of the object IS the object, the singular kinesthetic sensation of the objects weight IS the objects weight, and there is no object apart from these sensual appearances... again it is your own display. And we already discovered that there is no "you" for the display to belong to... so it is timeless awareness or consciousness... wisdom... whatever you want to name it.. in-and-of-itself. Same goes for hearing, same goes for taste, every single aspect of experience without fail is your own display... know this thoroughly, know it innately... divorced from intellect, be it, and be free.

There are no constituent movements of mind. The 'mind' is ONLY the apparent movement. There is no mind apart from thought, and thought itself conceptualizes a compartment or container called 'the mind' to belong to. Likewise there is no thought apart from awareness/consciousness... thought IS awareness, thought IS consciousness. Nothing appears to consciousness, consciousness IS these appearances... and there are no appearances, only consciousness. Consciousness alone IS. Lucid and clear, unobstructed and pure timeless nondual perfection.

Don't believe any of what I'm saying just look at your present experience, investigate empirically... it is self-evident and undeniable.

5heaps said:
so, therein lies much of the problem
there does seem, from the very beginning, to be a marker or identifier on the side of the object regardless of the fact that your following proofs are correct asunthatneversets. however, since they did not address the problem of physical and mental ultimates from the beginning it is of no surprise to learn that sautrantika who do not accept emptiness nevertheless have no problem asserting and accepting your reasonings (ie. there is only fresh moments of time a chain is only a mental synthesis, subject/object conceptual division, "Externality" vs "internality").

krodha wrote:
There are no physical and mental ultimates. There never was a beginning in the ultimate sense. Physical, mental, beginning and notion of eventual end, were seemingly born with the first imputation of selfhood. These notions have merely become so subconsciously engrained into you through incessant reification of duality that to conceive experience to be any other way seems absurd and counterintuitive. The marker and identifier is your own intimate state, the compelling notion that there is a marker or identifier on the side of the object is your own radiance, you are it. Your being is the unparalleled birthless and deathless principle which saturates what-is.

catmoon said:
besides the imputations and your sense impressions, what can you know about this allegedly external object?

5heaps said:
without external form (or nonexternal form if you are mindonly) a consciousness/sensation would be utterly impossible. so too with conceptual categories such as cheap or expensive, heavy or light. after all, heavy and light as conceptualizations and heavy and light as actual things are very different things

krodha wrote:
It seems utterly impossible, but disavow the reigning paradigm you champion and it's there to see, you just have to know how to look. There is no external or internal, these notions are based on identification with 'the body' as it is, the bordering line between "internal" and "external" is imputed as the surface of the skin. You are not the body or in the body, the body is in you, as you, and "you" is a concept, which is a thought, which is a sound, which is awareness, which is self-liberated the very moment it appears to itself in this primordial non-arising.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 13th, 2012 at 5:10 AM
Title: Re: Great Rock Band Ever! Greatest Song Ever!
Content:
Namdrol said:
This is completely Buddist in sentiment:


if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


krodha wrote:
Haha whenever I think of Motorhead I just think of Lemmys giant wart on his face... also funny that if you google image search "Lemmy" you only get photos of him.


Author: krodha
Date: Monday, February 13th, 2012 at 4:48 AM
Title: Re: from selflessness to emptiness
Content:
5heaps said:
these are only impressions existing inside a persons mind, and have nothing to do with the external physical particles.

krodha wrote:
Externality and constituent particles are imputations as well, at no point during the experience of a fire hydrant does the experience itself claim to be external. And in direct experience constituent particles are never experienced either (unless under a microscope, but that experience would not be the same as looking at the fire hydrant on the street, one only infers that it's the same via imputation). It's direct experience that is the key point, every moment is fresh and brand new, as if it's the first moment that ever existed... we only form a causal chain of happenings and time via imputation of memory which is also always ever fresh and brand new. Also, experience never suggests that impressions exist inside a persons mind, this is also imputed. In your direct experience the 'sound' of a thought and the 'sound' of someone speaking are the same and occupy the same space, neither are internal or external. Mind is also never experienced, the seeming appearance of a consecutive number of thoughts in a sequence of time makes it seem as if there is an entity called the mind, there is no mind, only thoughts, and thoughts lack a thinker. Physicality is also never experienced, we only accept a story of the physical and impute this onto experience, for instance when you touch something, you believe a story that 'you' are 'touching' a 'thing'... the actual experience is only one sensation.. just a single tactile sensation. You can play a game with this by touching something and rubbing it lightly, if you shift attention to the object then the sensation becomes the touching and feeling of the object, if you shift attention to your finger the sensation becomes the feeling in your finger, there is only one touch sensation, the shifting of attention and intention creates the nature of the sensation via imputation. Or another one; if you rub your thumb and pointer finger together, shifting attention to the thumb it's your thumb doing the touching, shift your attention to your pointer finger and it's your pointer finger doing the touching, in truth neither are touching, a tactile sensation simply appears in awareness, and the sensation is in fact awareness itself.

5heaps said:
emptiness is primarily a statement about those external objects, and not one's internal impressions,

krodha wrote:
The impressions themselves dictate external and internal, self and objects, apart from the impression none of these can be found, experience is whole and beyond any designations.

5heaps said:
because sautrantika selflessness already explains internal impressions [and more] (ie. theyre imputed, we already know that)

krodha wrote:
Everything is imputed. No thing exists apart from imputation.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, February 12th, 2012 at 7:13 PM
Title: Re: Buddhism / Nonduality Influenced Metal Bands
Content:
justsit said:
This must be a guy thing...


samdrup said:
It's not....I'm a guy, and I think It's dire!

krodha wrote:
Certainly an acquired taste... but to each their own! I love all genres of music, and can see the similarities in composition and progression between songs like these posted above and classical piano works (for example). I enjoy the creative energy and passion that any piece of music is product of. Also refreshing to see lyrical subject matter which is of substance in my opinion, it's quite evident that these individuals are very in touch with themselves. I'm glad they express their spiritual and metaphysical passions by writing about them lyrically to music they enjoy, it's truly amazing that sound can be arranged, composed, ordered and manipulated to create melody. The math that is involved in some of the time signatures these bands use is also undoubtably impressive. But in the end whether or not it's considered dire or incredible is truly a matter of opinion... and luckily for us, coming from our separate but unified backgrounds in the dharma, this fact is made even more apparent due to our infallible knowledge that beyond imputed notions everything is already flawless and perfect.


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, February 12th, 2012 at 7:52 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism / Nonduality Influenced Metal Bands
Content:
krodha wrote:
Psycroptic from Hobart Australia

Technical death metal.

PSYCROPTIC - REMOVING THE COMMON BOND
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Manipulation of evolution
Against all that is natural
A course uncharted
Creating that which was once revered by all
Becoming the one to oppose what has always been
The Pinnacle

Reconstructing the elemental nature of Life
A transcendence with no recourse
Time, no longer the restrictive force
Time, no longer the constant
The pendulum has stopped.

By removing the balancing factor
I rise about the homogeneous
We are equals no more
With the common bond of death removed

I stand alone.
Alone in Power.
Alone in Stature.
Alone.

Time is now irrelevant
The invisible structure long ago destroyed
I cannot undo what has been done
A selfish dream that has turned
Into an unwanted reality
Waiting for that which will never come
Without an end, how can "Life" exist?

Now I Just Am
I Am Eternal
I am Nothing

PSYCROPTIC - INITIATE
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Stripped of all that is unique, it is redundant
You have joined us, Welcome...
Embrace the new freedom of which you have never felt
Embrace the Nothingness
The sinister burden of individuality lifted
Embrace Us

You need struggle no longer
We offer what you have long yearned for
You will become complete
Now part of our family
Revel without our created monotheistic system
All else is false

You have chosen what is right
You have chosen what is true
You have accepted the inevitable
Adorned with the sacred cloth
You are now our brothers and sisters
Forget your past, repent
We forgive you

For you knew nothing else
Pure savages now tamed
We will guide your future
Together we move toward
All outsiders must fear us

Icons of dissent must fall, the great unclean herded
Those suitable, welcomed... Failures, discarded
Our invitation needs no reply
Vengeance awaits the chosen who doubt, refuse or mock.
We insure this, you will insure this
We cannot be faulted, we are immaculate
Values bond us closer than blood
Our family is ever growing
We will continue to do what is right:
Cleansing the Profane

PSYCROPTIC - (OB)SERVANT
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Waking each dawn if it was the first
Sleep eroding all trace of a past
With only vivid dreams intact
I foresee all that will become
A prophet unaware... A reluctant oracle
I remain naive and innocent
Tainted only by the knowledge of a sinister future.
Memories: For me they are Non-Existent
The concept is alien

Carrying clouded prophecies for the future
I see time moving in the opposite direction
Visions becoming clearer as they move toward fruition
Each second sees another vision fulfilled

A mind overwhelmed
All knowledge I possess dissolves as time passes
A mind purged
The future cannot be changed
With mine or your actions,
Every act has already occurred
The future is complete, all outcomes final

You cannot choose.
Unchangeable.
Unbiased.
Exact.

So without a past,
How can I be defined?
I do not possess a 'life', I only exist
My mind a window I wish I could shatter
Not free to choose a path to travel
As I already see its end.
With a perpetual view into the void that will become
I am the Observer to the Future,
Watching the crumbling timeline unfold in reverse.

PSYCROPTIC - EPOCH OF THE GODS
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Using universal time theories to ratify their religion.
These elite toil, to advance comprehension - Of space and time.
Although; out for the benefit of 'outsiders'.
Only their sanctuary shall profit as they understand, the true purpose of life:
To become a god, to become omnipotent -
This is life's work, yet completion will be fatal.
Psychologically unbalanced leaders in knowledge,
Unwittingly preparing the termination of 'reality'.
Yet with no malevolence towards others of their kindred...
Simply focusing on the will of the sermon.
Time movement is their goal such dedication rarely witnessed!
The only motivation in their myopic minds an individual craving for a subconscious need,
Allows philosophical faults to be unseen thus far created revolutionary scientific:
And technical advancements that that would be the awe of all.
Their concealment from society however, masks such glory,
Playing fundamentalist cult like spiritual insanity.
The word of their messiah eludes to their intentions yet she is no more than,
A charismatic jester of the modern world.
Emittfihs her synonym -
The name of true insanity time must be unbalanced to reach true enlightenment
For it is a cage that enslaves us all.
Restricted in thought we are not.
For we seek what others only dream,
Try as they might, those un-enlightened will not understand
The secrets and power that await in the shifting of time we must strive against ill-informed resistance
To acquire the chalice of a higher spiritual awakening!
Time must be stopped to achieve their purpose; A crazed thought.
Impossible of course?
Yet their methods could be plausible if their timeline theories are correct,
This 'cult' could succeed in reversing reality itself,
Cataclysmic events beyond mental, comprehension.
Reversing the evolution of that universe itself!
Using, advanced quantum physics and light frequency radiation to achieve the task.
Accidentally covering the mysteries of time, but believing it to be true celestial intervention.
Theories, when, exercised, will follow a destructive path.
Transgressing timelines and interfering in matters of dimensional construct...
The Objective: To find the dawn of time itself and prevent it from commencing!
Only then will they reach.
Their goal...
Omnipotence!
A fascinating presumption, that only time will reveal...


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, February 12th, 2012 at 7:39 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism / Nonduality Influenced Metal Bands
Content:
krodha wrote:
Neuraxis from Montreal Quebec

Technical death metal

NEURAXIS - AXIOMS
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


The Universal, the Ultimate, the Absolute
The wholehearted desire, in progressive conformity
By the body, by the mental, by the spirit
The logical devotion
Experience of the divine ideals
Spherical application of the incarnation
Infinite progression in three phases
Definite by the splendor of compassion

NEURAXIS - A THIN LINE BETWEEN
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Enigma of a world untamed
To explore the boundaries of what is known to man
Searching for the balance, a road to a fate uncertain

Fragile equilibrium - Hidden in a subtle disguise
Perfectly crafted to appear solid - A divine mask of conformity

Rules applied in the past, centuries of deceit and masquerade
Has rendered humanity thoughtless, forbidden to evolve

Tormented by the question
A conscience trapped in a maze

The abyss lies before
A mystical vortex of infinite depth
At the edge of unreason
A knowledge blurred
Through a mysterious horizon

Face the obvious, the acceptance of the fact
This universe...devoid of answers
Face the obvious, the acceptance of the fact
The puzzle within, impossible to resolve

This fear of the unknown
Is common for every mortal
An ocean of contradictions
With every waves, darkens
Frozen at the bottom

Thirst for knowledge
Insatiable desire to comprehend
This quest for truth leads a path unsecure
Dangerously stands at the border of chaos

Paradox at the end of the equation
...The unbreakable wall
Paralysis after a lifetime of reflection
...An endless cycle
Inevitably returns to where it all begins

To stand in the middle
At the origin of the struggle
Where fiction surpasses reality
Enlighted by a dream
The idea that spawns the beast
The thin line between
Genius and maniacal

Enigma of a world untamed
To explore the boundaries of what is known to man
Searching for the balance, a road to a fate uncertain

Fragile equilibrium - Hidden in a subtle disguise
Perfectly crafted illusion to appear solid - A divine mask of conformity

Rules applied in the past, centuries of deceit and masquerade
Has rendered humanity thoughtless, forbidden to evolve

The abyss lies before
A mystical vortex of infinite depth
At the edge of unreason
A knowledge blurred
Through a mysterious horizon

Face the obvious...the acceptance of the fact
This universe, devoid of answers
The puzzle within, impossible to resolve

No words to explain...the splendor of eternity
No images to describe...the horror of infinity

This fear of the unknown
Is common for every soul
Afflicted by solitude
Desperate in the absence of certitude

Thirst for knowledge
Insatiable desire to comprehend
This quest for truth leads a path unsecure
Dangerously stands at the border of chaos

Paradox at the end of the equation
...The unbreakable wall
Paralysis after a lifetime of reflection
...An endless cycle
Inevitably returns to where it all begins

To stand in the middle
At the origin of the struggle
Where fiction surpasses reality
Enlightenment through a dream
The idea that spawns the beast
The thin line between


NEURAXIS - THOUGHT ADJUSTER
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Actuality of the primal source incarnate amongst the souls
The true promise of eternal career imprisoned within the mortal mind
The general developmental stages of being
Designated as thought changers, called thought adjusters, referred to as thought controllers
Disconnected with the stages of progress in mind duplication
Widespreadly known as the pilot
That lights every soul which comes into the world
The Adjuster is eternity: man is personality
Will never know tranquility from the time of their bestowal
Until the day of their release to start upon the natural death of their subjects
Those who do not pass through the portals of natural death do not even experience this temporary rest
To represent, to be, the energy of the highest order of time and space
Fundamental works of the transfer
Elevating the mortal minds
Translating the souls up to the spiritual heights of achievement
Capacity and potential
Will wisdom have an opportunity to function?
Indwell minds of whose intimate natures, fully apprised
Indwell minds of whose intimate natures, fully apprised
Exhibit the worship outreach
Spiritual perception
Prospects of reverential development
Combined intellectual and spiritual powers
Associated to produce the strength of human character

NEURAXIS - MONITORING THE MIND
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Center of all things and beings
As a creator, as a controller
Lastly as an infinite upholder
Dawns upon mankind
Once supreme ambition, just one consuming desire that is to become
As they are in their spheres of supremacy
This attainment is the certain way of all progress
Achieve this destiny in all that pertains
Replete in their sphere of infinity and eternity
Refuse to coerce or compel (the submission of the free wills)
Once becoming truly conscious, discover the majestic and indwelling presence of the controller
Accordance with enlightenment, accordance with the method
Infinitely more than reality idealized
Merely a concept, potential of righteousness
Not a synonym for nature
Natural laws personified
A transcendent reality...
Concept of supreme values
Not a focalization of spiritual meanings
Reasonable to logic, plausible to philosophy
Essential to beliefs, indispensable to any hope for survival


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, February 12th, 2012 at 7:28 AM
Title: Re: Buddhism / Nonduality Influenced Metal Bands
Content:
krodha wrote:
Meshuggah from Umeå, Sweden

Metal with technical off-time signatures

MESHUGGAH - RATIONAL GAZE
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Squint your eyes to see clearly. Blur reality to make
it real
Let focus go from your deceiving eyes to know what's
been concealed
We've all been blinded - Subjects to visual
misinformation
A systematic denial of the crystalline

To see the fine grain, to read the hidden words
The context of parallel truth - Devoid of
fragmentation

Our light-induced image of truth - Filtered blank of
its substance
As our eyes won't adhere to intuitive lines
Everything examined, Separated, one thing at a time
The harder we stare the more complete the
disintegration. -Dissolution

Eyes re-opened, Reasoning focalized, Receptors
activated

Perspectives distorted
The ladder beyond our grasp
The twin-headed serpent forever hidden
Where's the true knowledge -
Where engines of the sane & insanity merge
The clarity. The unity

Reality untouchable, transparent, invisible
to our fixed, restricted fields of vision
Existence taken for granted. -Absolute

Possessed, owned, controlled
By the common sense-infected rational gaze
Onward forever we walk among the ignorant
Never stray from the common lines

MESHUGGAH - OBZEN
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


A state of perfection, immersed in filth
Equilibrium obtained
Pure in devotion to all things unwell
This sweet zen of our ill condition sustained

A new belief-system
Salvation found in vomit and blood
Where deprivation, lies
Corruption, war and pain is god

Balance
Harmony found in the sickly, the vile
Unflinching eyes, joyous and gleeming
Intense in their need to watch things die

A new belief-system
Salvation found in vomit and blood
Where deprivation, lies
Corruption, war and pain is god

Decay, disgrace, disgust - our state of zen

The grime of contempt and degeneration,
Sticky, foul and pungent
- The sediment of our creation
We flourish in this bloodred soil

MESHUGGAH - PINEAL GLAND OPTICS
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


How come I shiver, hurt and bleed,
If in dreams i cannot truly feel
Who would dare say, who would claim
This hallucination isn't real

Synaptical glitch looking glass
So enticing, real and free of lies
Prodigious, omnifarious
It nourishes, it feeds my starving eyes

Artificial the catalyst, organic its progeny
Voracious spectral offspring - so sweet in its hunger
Unbound this new vision, optical regenesis
Threatening, so complete in beautiful deformity

These authorative visions order my collective senses,
My questioning, doubtful, rigid self to kneel
A Judas syndrome in effect - former self the deceiver
Its denial the wretched kiss that kept this in disguise

Cast off - the conceiling veil, the rational cloak of doubt
Torn off - the restraints, the blinded's shackles
Burned away - the agony, the fear, the grief
A new set of eyes cleansed by a new belief


MESHUGGAH - DEHUMANIZATION / SUM
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


A new level reached, where the absence of air lets me breathe
I'm inverted electrical impulses. A malfunctioning death-code incomplete
All things before me, at first unliving glimpse undeciphered
Its semantics rid of logic. Nothing is all. All is contradiction

Grinding, churning - the sweetest ever noises
Decode me into their non-communication
A soundtrack to my failure, one syllable, one vowel

A stagnant flow of endings. Un-time unbound. Merging to form the multi-none
A sickly dance of matter, malignantly benign. Greeting the chasm - unbearable, sublime

Vision will blind. Severance ties. Median am I. True are all lies


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, February 12th, 2012 at 7:10 AM
Title: Buddhism / Nonduality Influenced Metal Bands
Content:
krodha wrote:
Saw Astus post that he was interested in other Buddhist influenced metal bands in a thread a few pages back... thought I'd share some..

Decrepit Birth from Santa Cruz California... technical melodic-death metal

DECREPIT BIRTH - METATRON
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Born into this world
Under an early sun
A mortal man of the ancient kingdom...earth
Walking in the dream of the vine
The lucid path of vision
I see a garden of shadows with no way out
Within the worlds of my dream
I seek the essence of my being
I transcend the realms...unknown before
Dimensions open before me
Absorbed/dissolved into the light of
Universal understanding
Cursed to live forever...burning from inside
My flesh is turned to fire...my eyes to blinding light
Awakened in my dream to the sound of my own scream
Metamorphosis...transformation...mutation
Who am I...what am I
Reaching out with my mind
Seeing the mysteries
Touch the origin
My mind transcends mortality
Displaced behind the prism of light
Falling into the eye of the paradox
I become the center of time
I am the balance...I am the eye
I am reborn...beyond the body
Beyond the pattern...beyond horizons
Beyond the light...divinity
Knowing the secret of creation
The universe within the flower of life
Five patterns of existence
Vibration of eternity
Past futures...emerge from the present
Lost forever inside my mind
I am eternal
Foundation of time and space
One becomes one inside the circle
Bearing the ancient scrolls of existence
I am destiny


DECREPIT BIRTH - POLARITY
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Parallels exist within
Reflection of time and space
Inside of dimension
Dualities evolving from a
Single-cell universe within the molecule
Within this dimension
Of my creation
In the blinding light of darkness
I remain one/we become one
Constant fluctuation
Two suns born
Born of the atom
Symbiotic opposition
Recreation of life changing
Individual...sovereignty
Absorb the other...fusion
Conception of time's vibration collapses within
Ancient forces of opposition
Eternal balances of existence
Aeons...futures...past...evolution
Internal axis of resistance
Pre-embryonic magnetic core
Creation of all worlds inside
Existence of thought
Reaches beyond...forever
Harmony achieved through unity
Within the spectral fields of light...called time

DECREPIT BIRTH - SYMBOSIS
if (typeof bbmedia == 'undefined') { bbmedia = true; var e = document.createElement('script'); e.async = true; e.src = 'bbmedia.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(e, s); }
https://phpbbex.com/ [video]


Eternally connected to the energies of existence
Subconscious link of consciousness
The golden light that makes us all one soul
One thought
One beginning
One center of focus
Pasts, present, futures
Existing in the moment
Sequences of existence inner-twine
Feel my light touch thee
The dreams of life awaken inside
Transcend the lies
Live for your dream
Open your mind and see
One soul, one thought, one mind
Evolution of understanding
Attain the wisdoms
Knowledge eternal
I reach out and touch your mind
I reveal the secrets before your eyes
Look into my eyes and you see yourself
I look into you and I see god
We hold the keys to the wisdoms
To the secrets and mysteries within
Witness the light of the new worlds
Evolution of consciousness
Converging the ancient forces
Behold the thought universal
Eternal unity of energies...


Author: krodha
Date: Sunday, February 12th, 2012 at 6:13 AM
Title: Re: Understanding emptiness
Content:
Konchog1 said:
So, why do I label a car as car? Instead of a lion. I see it as a machine not a giant animal. Wouldn't that mean there is something from the car's own side to make it a car?

5heaps said:
perhaps we can for the moment agree that there is something on the side of the object--but what is that thing? is it "lion" or "car" that is coming from the side of the object?

yadave said:
Wait, don't tell me ...............

..............................

Car!

Regards,
Dave.

krodha wrote:
No Dave, sorry... the correct answer would have been "a Blue 1986 Nissan 300zx Turbo with gray leather interior".... keep practicing


Author: krodha
Date: Thursday, February 9th, 2012 at 1:37 AM
Title: Re: Blue Tārā
Content:
krodha wrote:
Ekajaṭī is also known as Blue Tārā

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekajati


